Emily Chow is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The reported on August 7, 2022 that Innovation Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne and Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez are working on reforming the to include an artist resale right (ARR) within the scope of the act’s protections. First enacted in France in 1920, ARRs have now been adopted by in the world, including India, the United Kingdom, the Philippines and Australia. To understand why ARRs may come into force, it is important to assess the various arguments in support of and against this legislation.

ARRs formed part of the Liberal Party’s in 2021, but have been central to artist rights advocacy for according to – the Canadian Artists Representation / Le Front des artistes canadiens – a non-profit organization of professional visual artists. Under current Canadian law, artists such as sculptors and painters receive no profits from their works’ resale. One commonly cited example is the late Inuit artist Kenojuak Ashevak’s print titled . Hailing from Kinnigait (formerly Cape Dorset), Nunavut, Ashevak originally sold her print for in 1960. In November of 2018, a limited-edition Enchanted Owl print sold for $216,000 at Waddington's Auctioneers and Appraisals Toronto: nine thousand times the original price and breaking the record for the most expensive Canadian artist print ever sold via auction.

If ARRs existed in Canada, Ashevak’s estate would have received $10,800 for the sale of Enchanted Owl. CARFAC has been advocating for to be granted to the original artist or their estate, pointing to the fact that half of Canada’s visual artists earn less than $18,000 per year. In its , CARFAC also highlighted the reality that many artists living in isolated northern communities live in impoverished conditions, while their work dramatically appreciates in value. In , Rankin Inlet-based artist Theresie Tungilik noted that “[the] artist's resale right will have a positive financial impact as 10% of Canada’s export is Inuit art.”

The rise of NFTs and blockchain technology – despite providing an – has also provided opportunities for artists to be compensated for the appreciation of their works. The embedding of “smart contracts” in NFT sales allows for the Exercising control of downstream purchaser actions for traditional or non-digital artistic mediums is more complicated. Outside of , which protect the original artist’s right to be associated with the work without modification or destruction, agreements of purchase and sale generally enable the purchaser to do whatever they see fit with the work.

While organizations like CARFAC, (Society for Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) and (Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec) are staunch supporters of the artist resale right in Canada, other groups remain hesitant. Both the Contemporary Art Galleries Association (AGAC) and Art Dealers Association of Canada (ADAC) are , arguing that ARR collections would be a bureaucratic burden for small galleries, as well as raise the price of art and reduce sales. Interestingly, a study done in the UK by WIPO entitled “” demonstrated that the resale right had no negative impact of the price of artworks or the competitiveness of markets. The study also found that the market continued to grow after the implementation of the resale right in 2006.

Not all Canadian galleries oppose ARRs. Jay Isaac, an artist himself who runs the Peter Estey Fine Art auction house in New Brunswick, has to . Isaac told Canadian Art that “as a small, artist-run business I have to say the idea of a policy is great, and the idea of a resale right becoming law is great—but sometimes I think that [lack of law] is used as an excuse not to move forward. People with money and power should really be doing this anyway.” Although no specific amendments have been presented yet, it will be interesting to see how the conversation regarding ARRs continues to develop in Canada. Most importantly, ARR discussions provide an opportunity to consider how to best support our diverse artists and creatives.

Further Reading:

Michelle Mao’s IPilogue on ARRs and NFT loopholes

�����䴡��’s to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology as part of the statutory review of the Copyright Act

WIPO Magazine, “” by Catherine Jewell

Inuit Art Foundation’s

The post Canadian Perspectives on Artist Resale Rights appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Chow is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Mariah Carey’s 1994 tune “All I Want For Christmas Is You” is one of the most iconic songs of the holiday season. It is the to be certified diamond, earning an estimated . With over 1.15 billion streams on Spotify alone, it would be hard to find someone unable to complete the lyrics after hearing the opening line, “I don't want a lot for Christmas…”

After 28 years on air, it might be a surprise to see a new copyright infringement lawsuit filed against the song in Louisiana on June 3. Novelty musician Andy Stone, also known as Vince Vance and the Valiants, against Carey, her co-writer, and Sony Music for copyright infringement, alleging that Carey knowingly infringed the rights to Vance’s . According to the lawsuit, Vance’s lawyers contacted Carey in April 2021 but were unable to come to any agreement regarding the rights and distribution of “All I Want For Christmas Is You.” Vance seeks $20 million dollars in damages for Carey’s failure to obtain permission to use Vance’s song to create a derivative work.

The US statute of limitations is from the last incidence of infringement, but due to the nature of the song’s annual return, the statute has not run. While the untimeliness is certainly odd, the lawsuit itself is even odder. The complaint does not explicitly allege that the two songs are substantially similar. Instead, states that Carey’s work “was designed to exploit [Vance’s] popularity and unique style, causing confusion as to the association” between the two artists. In doing so, Carey effectively sought to “capitalize on the goodwill and unique talent of [Vance] in an effort to obtain commercial advantage.” This argument is questionable considering that in the 90s, Carey sold over ﷟ 100 million albums and released 14 No. 1 singles compared to Vance’s song, which on �����������Dz�����’s Hot Country Singles and Tracks chart in 1994.

In order to prove that Carey’s song is an unlicensed derivative work, Vance will need to show that Carey’s work is a derivative work in the first place. Beyond the obvious fact that the two songs share a name, there appears to be little else supporting the vague allegations made in the lawsuit. Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans are . In fact, Vance’s song with the same title listed on the US Copyright Office’s Catalog. As a layperson, the two songs do not sound quite ��alike – one is an upbeat pop song, the other a country tune. Song lyrics do fall under the scope of copyright protection, but Christmas imagery such as stockings and mistletoe fall under the doctrine and cannot be protected due to the generic or universal nature of the song’s theme.

If the case does go to trial, only a jury can decide whether Carey’s song “resulted in confusing the public in addition to resulting in a substantial loss of income” to Vance.

The post A Very (Sum)Merry Christmas: Mariah Carey Faces Lawsuit Over “All I Want For Christmas Is You” appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Chow is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

I recently attended the Copyright Society of the USA’s event, , which featured IP Osgoode’s own Professor David Vaver alongside Professor Ysolde Gendreau from the University of Montreal in a discussion regarding the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in The unanimous decision written by Rowe J. clarified provisions of the , ruling that the Act only requires users to pay one royalty fee to stream works online as opposed to the two fees proposed by . You can read more about the decision in my summary published on the last week.

After brief introductions, the two speakers began by providing necessary context for the recent decision, including Parliament’s intentions behind the 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act. Prof. Gendreau first highlighted the three main copyrights enshrined in the Act’s : the right to produce or reproduce a work, to perform a work in public, and to publish the work. Section 3 includes several subsections which list various “examples” or “actions” encompassed within these rights – the relationships between the main rights and the subsections, Prof. Gendreau highlighted, were key questions before the court. The speakers also discussed a previous SCC decision that interpreted for the first time back in 2012; in a narrow 5-4 majority, held that the act of downloading a work did not amount to “communicating” said work to the public by telecommunication under section 3(1)(f) (para 4). Furthermore, “making available” is not a separate and compensable right, but rather part of the communication right encompassed within 3(1)(f).

Profs. Vaver and Gendreau briefly touched upon the use of international laws and treaties in interpreting domestic legislation, cautioning against cases of the “tail wagging the dog” in statutory interpretation. They emphasized the importance of interpreting domestic statute first, and international law () is a useful but secondary factor that provides context.

Interestingly, the speakers differed in their opinions about who the Copyright Act ultimately protects. While Prof. Vaver believed that the Act seeks to balance the rights of end users with original authors, Prof. Gendreau was of the belief that the ������’s protections lean towards the side of author. However, both noted that the SOCAN v ESA decision appears to freeze copyright as it is when the new technology is introduced, rather than growing alongside the subsequent adoption and growth. They both found that the SCC decision made a firm distinction between the acts of downloading and streaming, where in reality the line is blurred by a user’s ability to bookmark and cache online content.

What are your thoughts on the recent SOCAN v ESA decision? IP Osgoode invites you to share your thoughts in the comments section below.

The post Notes on CSUSA’s Breaking News Series: Supreme Court of Canada Rules on “Making Available” appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Chow is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On July 15, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) released its for the case Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (“SOCAN”) v. Entertainment Software Association (“ESA”). The unanimous decision written by Justice Rowe clarified provisions of the ��(the “A����”), ruling that the Act only requires users to pay one royalty fee to stream works online as opposed to the two fees proposed by .

Judicial History

In 2012, Parliament amended the Copyright Act to align copyright legislation with the , which Canada signed in 1997. Among the changes was the addition of section which was meant to clarify subsection ��defining “communication of a work or other subject‑matter to the public by telecommunication includes making it available to the public by telecommunication in a way that allows a member of the public to have access to it from a place and at a time individually chosen by that member of the public.”

As the central authority for the approval of tariffs, the held proceedings to determine the amount of royalties to be paid, receiving submissions from various groups on how to interpret the new sections of the Copyright Act. , a music licensing organization representing over 175,000 music creators, publishers and visual artists, argued that s. 2.4(1.1) required royalties to be paid whenever a copyrighted work was posted on the Internet for public access. The Copyright Board concurred, deeming that the act of making works available was in itself a separately protected and compensable activity. In effect, there would be two payable royalties: one for when the provider makes the work available online, and another for when a user actually streams or downloads a work.

The Federal Court of Appeal the Copyright Board’s decision, concluding that Parliament did not intend to introduce the two-royalties system for users accessing works online.

Key Takeaways

Although differing in the exact standard of review for the Copyright Board’s decision, the SCC unanimously dismissed SOCAN and Music Canada’s appeal. The SCC found that the Copyright Board and �����䴡��’s interpretation of the Copyright Act’s new sections undermined the purpose of the Act itself. As per the principle of , “distributing functionally equivalent works through old or new technology should engage the same copyright interests […] what matters is what the user receives, not how the user receives it” absent parliamentary intent to the contrary. Section 2.4(1.1) merely clarifies that a work is “communicated” when it is made available or uploaded – as , streaming begins when the work was made available online and continues throughout to the end user’s accessing of the work. Thus, section 2.4(1.1) does not entitle authors to an additional “making available” royalty for making the work available online. It is merely part of the public performance right enshrined in section 3(1)(f).

The SCC also addressed two non-copyright specific issues relevant to the larger practice of law in Canada. Firstly, the SCC recognized a under to apply for instances of concurrent first instance jurisdiction, which allows both administrative bodies and courts to have this first instance jurisdiction over a legal issue in a statute (). Secondly, the Court reiterated the role international treaties play in statutory interpretation. Although WIPO’s Copyright Treaty is relevant to the statutory interpretation of the Act, it cannot “overwhelm clear legislative intent” (). The SCC found that the Copyright Board erred by privileging the Copyright Treaty and Canada’s signatory obligations over the domestic Copyright Act in its interpretation.

The Copyright Society of the USA will host a , breaking down the decision and exploring its broader implications for all stakeholders in the arenas of licensing, collective administration, and enforcement. The event features IP Osgoode’s own Professor David Vaver alongside Professor Ysolde Gendreau from the University of Montreal. It will be taking place virtually on Wednesday, August 3, 2022, at 12pm EST. Details and registration information can be found

Further reading:

Breakdown of SOCAN v ESA’s administrative law related holdings:

US Government’s Making Available �첥��Ƶ:

The post SOCAN v ESA: Royalties in the Age of Streaming appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Chow is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On June 10, 2022, Adidas launched its first federal lawsuit against its main competitor, Nike, at the US District Court in Eastern Texas. Demanding a jury trial, the alleges that Nike has conducted nine counts of patent infringement relating to Adidas’ GPS, sensor and wearable technologies.

Both retailers are at the forefront of the sportswear/sporting goods industry, although Nike substantially exceeds Adidas in global sales with a profit of compared to The are Puma ($5.72B), Under Armour ($5.22B) and Lululemon Athletica ($3.75B).

The global sneaker industry, valued at by the end of 2027. According to , a large proportion of Nike’s income comes from footwear, with an estimated revenue of $28 billion USD in 2021 compared to Adidas’ $12.84 billion.

In its complaint, Adidas claims that Nike induced infringements of nine patents through their development of the , , and mobile applications. Adidas also takes issue with shoe line, which launched in 2016 and features self-tightening laces according to the wearer’s foot. The company claims that this is an infringement of Adidas’ existing patent for an that senses and adjusts the comfort of the shoe when worn. was announced in 2004 and released in 2005, touted as the world’s first intelligent running shoe.

In addition to selling sneakers, Adidas and Nike have both developed various mobile applications and exercise companions. According to , features of Nike’s apps – such as location-based GPS run tracking, the creation of training plans, audio feedback, and integration with third party devices – are direct infringements of Adidas’ intellectual property and its app. ��

Furthermore, Adidas points to similarities between its app, launched in February 2015, and , introduced a few days later. Both apps claim to make buying exclusive products easier and fairer for users, . The patented technology in question is , “systems and techniques for computer-enabled geo-targeted product reservation for secure and authenticated online reservations,” which allows Adidas to confirm a and prevent a bot from reserving the product in advance of the launch.

Adidas seeks a declaration from the court that Nike has infringed its patents, a permanent injunction, and compensatory damages, that “unless enjoined by this Court, [Nike’s] acts of infringement will continue to damage adidas irreparably.”

This new lawsuit comes at the and corresponding lawsuit filed in Oregon in December 2021. Nike sought to ban the import of shoes, accusing Adidas of appropriating Nike’s patented technology – a special knit weave made up of recycled and reclaimed yarn that creates a sock-like fit for the wearer.

The in Washington is often a forum for companies competing in the global market. Given the ITC’s relatively faster decisions – 15 to 18 months – , the ITC offers an expedited, comprehensive mechanism for addressing patent infringements.

Back in 2005, Nike also sued Adidas in East Texas. However, the companies It will be interesting to see how the ITC and Oregon verdicts will affect both companies’ strategies moving forward.

The post Checks Over Stripes? Adidas Launches Lawsuit Against Nike Over Wearable Technology appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Chow is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

In March, the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) , citing information that “strongly indicat[ed] that examination content [had] been improperly accessed by some candidates” and evidence of “potential involvement of third parties in this activity.” With 3 days notice, students were left scrambling. Licensing examinations would also no longer be online but re-adapted to in-person sittings. In an with over 500 signatures, students and lawyers from across the country called for the exams to go ahead as scheduled, interruptions to articling terms, travel plans, or plans to write exams in other jurisdictions.

The circumstances prompting this decision have since come to light.�� On May 25^th, 2022, the LSO that it had commenced legal action against , an exam prep company lead by Aamer Chaudhry. In its , the LSO alleges that NCA Exam Guru disseminated documents containing answers to the November 2021 barrister examinations and the March 2022 online examinations. ��

The highlights the significant expenses, stress, and inconvenience caused by the disruption, and calls for NCA Exam Guru to be liable for breaches of confidence, conspiracy, breach of contract, and copyright infringement. The LSO also seeks an injunction prohibiting NCA Exam Guru from further possessing, using, communicating, or distributing examination content, and for NCA Exam Guru to disgorge all profits earned (directly or indirectly) as a result of the infringement of the LSO’s copyrights.

How are LSO examinations protected? Firstly, test takers must agree to a , which provides that candidates must not engage in any form of dishonesty, fraud, cheating, misrepresentation, or other conduct related to the examination. This encompasses a wide scope of actions, “memorization for subsequent transcription or dissemination.” Furthermore, the Candidate Agreement specifies that all examination content and materials are the exclusive property of the LSO, are protected by copyright, and are subject to the law of copyright in Canada.

It is unknown how exactly NCA Exam Guru obtained examination content. Nevertheless, and may have engaged in similar conduct to other previous LSO examinations. According to , candidates who wrote earlier exams are delayed in being called to the bar, pending the outcome of further ongoing investigations.

As of , the barrister and solicitor exams were moved again from June to July. , Treasurer of the LSO, noted in the LSO’s announcement that “regardless of our efforts, we know that this decision has affected many candidates … I am truly sorry for those that are experiencing these impacts.” This significant change to exam timelines emphasizes how copyright can be abstract, as one’s study guide can quickly become a breach of confidence with widespread ramifications to past and present bar exam takers.

The post Alleged Copyright Violations: LSO v NCA Exam Guru appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Chow is an��IPilogue��Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

In the age of streaming, social media, and subscription-based entertainment platforms, critics have called for amendments to Canada's , which was last updated in 1991 – long before the internet we know today materialized. On February 2, 2022, Minister of Canadian Heritage Pablo Rodriguez , proposing sweeping changes to Canadian broadcasting regulation and policy directives. Referred to as the Online Streaming Act, this proposed legislation purports, among other things, to uplift and amplify Canadian creators by regulating online streaming services such as YouTube, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video, and Netflix.

Its predecessor, Bill C-10, was passed by the House of Commons but was unable to secure Senate approval before the dissolution of Parliament in 2021. Like Bill C-10, the proposed Online Streaming Act seeks to bring unregulated digital media platforms within the mandate of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Currently, these foreign-based platforms operate outside the regulation of the CRTC as distinct from traditional TV/radio broadcasts, and thus are not required to invest significant resources in Canada's domestic creative industries. The Canadian broadcasting, film and television production sectors are substantial players in the Canadian economy, accounting for approximately $14 billion to Canada's GDP in 2019 and predicted to rise in the coming years. According to a poll cited by the Canadian Media Producers Association (CMPA),

The Online Streaming Act coins the concept of an "online undertaking," broadly defined as "an undertaking for the transmission and retransmission of programs over the internet," giving the CRTC wide discretion in determining what is considered a "program" under its framework. Furthermore, the CRTC would be empowered with the ability to order and impose conditions upon online services to advance various policy objectives, including promoting Indigenous and racialized community-produced content. ��

Reactions to the proposed legislation have been mixed. The CMPA, which represents over 600 independent production companies across Canada, have launched a They argue that the Online Streaming Act will redirect some of the streaming giants' profits back into Canada's creative sectors and make it easier for Canadian audiences to access Canadian and Indigenous content outside platform algorithms. Jennifer Brown, CEO of the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) told The Globe and Mail that she thinks .

Others are concerned with how the proposed amendments would affect user-generated content and individual rights to curate one's own media feed. Ramneet Bhullar from OpenMedia.org takes issue with , arguing that the threshold of "Canadian"-ness is inherently problematic and that the CRTC's expanded powers will only amplify "officially recognized content", rather than the content individual consumers want to see.

YouTube also spoke to CTV News, Youtube noted that arbitrarily promoting Canadian content could skew their algorithms. These algorithms take into account whether a video has been watched, ignored or turned off part way, thus affecting how the content is promoted.

Michael Geist, a law professor from the University of Ottawa that he believes “the starting point in the bill is that all audio-visual services anywhere in the world with some Canadian users or subscribers are subject to the Canadian jurisdiction and it will fall to the Commission to establish thresholds exempting some services from regulation. However, even with some exemptions, the Canadian approach will require registration and data disclosures, likely leading many services to block Canada altogether, reducing choice and increasing consumer cost.”

is currently at consideration in committee at the House of Commons, having completed its second reading as of May 12, 2022.

Further Reading:

Bill C-11 in its entirety:

CMPA's Campaign to pass the Online Streaming Act:

Global News: What’s a Canadian Film?

The post Regulating Netflix, YouTube, and TikTok: Reactions to Bill C-11 appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Chow is an��IPilogue��Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.��

To read part 1 of this article, click .

In September 2020, against former UBC employee and Open Education Librarian Ian Linkletter for tweeting�� links to Proctorio's Help Centre YouTube videos for instructors and taking a screenshot of the website. In its lawsuit, Proctorio sought a declaration that Linkletter infringed its copyright, circumvented technological protection measures, and breached confidence. The company was also granted an interim injunction preventing Linkletter from sharing further links and videos from their websites.

Linkletter defended his actions, admitting to the tweets but denied copyright infringement or breached confidence. In his defence, he also identified the Proctorio lawsuit as part of a growing trend of "SLAPP" litigation — Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation — intended to deter and ultimately silence outspoken critics and inhibit participation in public affairs.

On March 11, 2022, the decision was released, written by Justice Milman of the BC Supreme Court. The issues at stake were whether the action should be dismissed under s. 4 of the BC and if the injunction should remain in its present form.

Breach of Confidence

Section 4 of the PPPA states that the applicant may apply for a dismissal order on the basis that the proceeding arises from an expression made by the applicant, and that the expression relates to a matter of public interest. The leading case for interpreting this section is , where the first branch of the test requires an applicant to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the action arises from one's expression that "relates to a matter of public interest" (Pointes at para 23). If successful, the action must be dismissed unless the other party can demonstrate that (1) there are grounds to believe that the action has substantial merit; (2) the applicant has no valid defence; and (3) the harm suffered as a result of the expression is serious enough to outweigh the public interest protecting the expression.

Proctorio did not dispute the fact that the ongoing debate of the impact of its software was of public interest; rather, it focused on Linkletter's supposed malicious intent and sharing of confidential links. Milman J. was not persuaded on this point, stating that "[Linkletter] was using the content of the videos in an effort to illustrate his point about the harm that Proctorio's software was capable of causing to some students" (para 50).

Milman J. then proceeded to discuss the merits of Proctorio's case against Linkletter, assessing whether the tweets constituted a breach of confidence. On the one hand, he found that Proctorio's choice to host the help videos on a website such as YouTube over other secured options weakened the case that the information Linkletter tweeted out was confidential. However, he also considered that the unlisted videos were accessed through Proctorio's Help Centre, which Linkletter entered through the instructor sign-in portal and was thus subject to Proctorio's Terms of Service that restricts sharing. Milman J. found that Proctorio met its burden under s. 4(2)(a) of the PPPA to show there were grounds to believe that its claim for breach of confidence has substantial merit and that there are no valid defences to it (para 83).

Copyright Infringement and Fair Dealing

Proctorio, as a copyright owner under , argued that hyperlinking to the unlisted videos constituted an infringement of their copyright. Milman J. agreed, noting that the links were only accessible via the Help Centre for users logged in as accredited instructors or administrators. With regards to the tweeted screenshot, Linkletter successfully argued that the image was not "a substantial part" of the copyrighted work in which the Copyright Act's s. 3 protects.

Lastly, Milman J. discussed Linkletter's defence on the basis of fair dealing (s. 29 of the Copyright Act) and non-commercial user generated content (s. 29.21). Whether or not a dealing is "fair" depends on the purpose, character, and amount of the dealing, as well as possible alternatives, the nature of the work, and the effect of the dealing.

Milman J. accepted that Linkletter's real purpose in copying the links to his Twitter feed was to demonstrate his point about the harm he believed Proctorio's software was causing students, arising out of a genuine sense of public duty rather than malice (para 107). However, he was unable to conclude that it was necessary for Linkletter to share all the videos he did in order to make his point. He also found that Proctorio had a legitimate interest in keeping the instructional materials private only to instructors and administrators. In sharing the links, Milman J. found that Linkletter created a risk that Proctorio's product would be rendered less effective for its intended purpose (because students would be able to anticipate how instructors configured Proctorio's invigilation settings) and that its proprietary information would be made more readily available to competitors (para 112). These risks were found to be unlikely to materialize and mainly speculative.

The Status of the Injunction

Milman J. found that the injunction granted to Proctorio was granted in overly broad terms, and the injunction ought to have been framed more narrowly so that it prohibited "no more than the conduct [Milman J.] found to be properly actionable, namely, Mr. Linkletter's public sharing of materials posted on the Help Centre and Academy webpages, and encouraging others to do so" (para 145).

Conclusion

In summary, success for each party was divided. As of April 13, 2022, Although the resolution is still unclear, it is certain that this case — — has about the ethics of AI-powered invigilation methods worldwide.

Further Reading

Linkletter's defence and GoFundMe (donations closed):

The New Yorker's deep-dive on online test-monitoring:

The Coronavirus pandemic and surge in demand for exam proctoring:

The post Proctorio v Linkletter - Part 2 appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Kaitlyn Baker ()

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

With the emergence of the pandemic, schools across the globe had to rapidly shift to new testing mechanisms in line with stay-at-home lockdown orders. Remote invigilation and AI software seemed like the tools to support instructors and prevent cheating on exams that were suddenly shifted online. However, the rise of companies like were coupled with criticisms of fully-AI invigilation systems: and , , and and algorithms quickly came to the forefront. Various penned open letters and petitions hoping to curtail the use of invasive remote proctoring software that tracks eye movements, facial expressions, spatial information, and more. Part 1 of this article series will discuss the background information pertaining to , including how the lawsuit began.

On June 25, 2020 on the University of British Columbia (“UBC”) reddit forum, instead spiraled into a confrontation with the CEO of Proctorio, Mike Olsen. Under the username artfulhacker, Olsen responded to the criticisms of Proctorio by While the responses to Olsen are intact, Olsen’s reddit account has since been deleted, along with all his inflammatory comments.

. At the time, he was employed by UBC as a Learning Technology Specialist and Open Education Librarian. He had already been looking into Proctorio’s services when the incident occurred. He called Olsen out on Twitter and Reddit, . These were taken from Proctorio’s help website for instructors.

In September 2020, Proctorio for eight tweets of links to the unlisted videos and for posting a screenshot of the help website. Aligned with Linkletter’s belief in free speech and privacy concerns in the public interest, his entire defence can be found here.

Part 2 will look at the actual decision by Milman J. from March 25, 2022 and examine the comments on free speech and fair dealing for the purpose of criticism.

The post Proctorio v Linkletter: Exam Invigilation or Invasive Surveillance? - Part 1 appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Jakub Kapusnak ()

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

��

Over the past decade, the media has published several scandals about the quality and safety of the food we eat – from to . It is estimated that the counterfeit food industry

Beyond , fraudulent foodstuffs exacerbate the risks facing endangered species. Researchers found that an estimated were substituted with . Inaccurate labelling makes it difficult to track and identify what animals are at risk due to human activity; this is especially concerning given that . There are of other examples of highly substituted foods. found king scallops sold in Germany were replaced with the less valued Japanese species in 48% of samples. Another found prawn balls on sale in Singapore .

Difficult conservation policy decisions, already limited in funding, can be more effective when comprehensive data is available to inform such decisions. Oceana, whose mandate is to protect Earth’s oceans, by increasing the profitability of destructive fishing practices, undermining consumer-driven conservation efforts, and harming large-scale conservation initiatives such as quotas and restrictions.

Interestingly, food products are not the only counterfeit organic item on the market.

In 2016, An internal investigation revealed that approximately , a direct contradiction of Welspun’s appeal and promises of quality. Welspun’s intricate network of cotton suppliers, manufacturers, and retailers made sourcing the error difficult. Whether it was a mistake in labelling or a deliberate act of fraud, makes it difficult for consumers and producers alike to confirm the authenticity of an item. Luckily for Welspun, a was up to the task. In 2017, they that would allow Oritain to validate Welspun’s supply chain of home textile products.

In Oritain’s co-founder Russel Frew discussed his past life as a researcher at the University of Otago. A geochemist, Frew utilized a mass spectrometer often, which allowed him to determine the precise atomic makeup of water and soil samples gathered from across the world: a unique elemental signature for a given area. Applied to products, Oritain describes its method as

Atoms of a particular element can have different amounts of neutrons—neutral particles that do not contain an electric charge—residing within each atom’s nucleus, resulting in various isotopes. Oritain determines the relative ratios of isotopes within a sample to ascertain its origin. For instance, a sample’s . Oritain also analyzes trace elements in These can include sodium and iron derived from the composition of soils, water, and feeds. In addition to sourcing the origins of fabrics and textiles, Oritain has to combat food fraud.

The expansion of verification and traceability programs may lead to the and supply chains around the globe.

Further Reading:

Oritain Certification:

Oceana:

“What is Mass Spectrometry?” by the Broad Institute: .

Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s survey to verify the authenticity of honey samples:

“Food Fraud in Canada” published by the Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph:

��

The post Something’s Fishy: Counterfeit Organics and Consequences for Global Conservation appeared first on IPOsgoode.