Copyright Collectives

Blog, Copyright Collectives

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020, the Copyright Board sent out a Notice by email (the Notice has not yet appeared on the Board’s website) correcting an error made in its decision from December 6, 2019 regarding the approval of Access Copyright’s higher education tariffs. This is the second Notice correcting errors in the Board’s decision in this case. The Board had previously issued an Erratum after realizing that an error in calculating interest on the licence fees would have resulted, unintentionally, in doubling these amounts.

Blog, Copyright, Copyright Collectives

On Dec 4, I appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, as part of the statutory review of the Copyright Act and its study on remuneration models for artists and creative industries. Here is my written testimony: Good morning. My name is Ariel Katz. I am a law professor at the University of Toronto, where I hold the Innovation Chair Electronic Commerce. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today. In my comments today, I would like to focus on some of the ways in which copyright contributes to or detract from the …

Statutory Review of the Copyright Act: My Testimony Before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage Read more →

Blog, Copyright, Copyright Collectives, Stationers

On Dec 3, I appeared before the House of Common’s Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, as part of the statutory review of the Copyright Act. Here is my written testimony: Good afternoon. My name is Ariel Katz. I am a law professor at the University of Toronto, where I hold the Innovation Chair Electronic Commerce. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today. In my comments today, I would like to focus on dispelling some of the misinformation about the application of copyright law and fair dealing in the educational sector.

Blog, Copyright, Copyright Collectives, Stationers

Two weeks ago, Justice Phelan of the Federal Court handed Access Copyright a huge victory in its lawsuit against York University.[1] I have followed the case closely and read the parties’ submissions and I have been constantly concerned that York risked snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Unfortunately, this is what happened. The good news is that many of the Court’s fundamental findings rest on very loose foundations, that I am confident that York’s loss is only temporary, and that if York appeals the decision and handles the appeal appropriately, most, if not all, of the Court’s major findings …

Access Copyright v. York University: An Anatomy of a Predictable But Avoidable Loss Read more →

Blog, Copyright, Copyright Collectives, Stationers

Earlier today, Australia’s Productivity Commission released its long-awaited Inquiry Report on Intellectual Property Arrangements. The Productivity Commission was set up by statute to provide the Australian Government independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues, in order to help governments make better policies, in the long term interest of the Australian community. The lengthy report and its recommendations should be of interest to many readers of this blog. With respect to copyright, one of the Commission’s main areas of study was whether Australia should adopt an open and flexible fair use regime and abandon …

Productivity Commission: Tales of the Widespread Demise of Canadian Publishers are Just That Read more →

Blog, Copyright, Copyright Collectives

I am excited and honoured to give the Hong Kong University Public Lecture in IP next Wednesday, Nov 9, 2016. The title of my lecture is “Fair Dealing: Have We Had Fair Use All Along?” The lecture is based on this book chapter. Abstract: Conventional wisdom holds that while the fair use doctrine in the United States is omnipresent and flexible, fair dealing, its Commonwealth cousin is more rigid and can only apply to the specifically enumerated statutory purposes. Fair use, on this view, is an American invention—foreign to the copyright traditions of the rest of the common law world. …

Fair Dealing: Have We Had Fair Use All Along? (HKU Public Lecture in IP) Read more →

Blog, Copyright, Copyright Collectives

Pier-Luk Bouthillier is a Montreal graphic designer. He had previously worked as an Art Director for the cultural weekly “ICI Montreal”, and in 2007, he launched his first in a series of environmentally-themed t-shirts. You can see his t-shirts on his website (as well as some ‘Fleur de lys’ boxer briefs). One of Mr. Bouthillier’s shirts, J’aime Montréal, features a few stylized drawings of various Montreal landmarks, organized around the slogan J’♥ Montréal. According to the CBC, this got Mr. Bouthillier in some legal trouble.

Antitrust / Competition Law, Blog, Copyright, Copyright Collectives, Stationers

Tagged with , , , ,

Yesterday, McGill’s Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and I filed a joint Intervener Factum in the CBC v SODRAC case before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court granted us leave to intervene with respect to the question of whether tariffs that the Copyright Board approved can be imposed on users. In the decision below, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) held that a collective management organization (“CMO”) can ask the Board to approve a licensing scheme and then impose it on users. If correct, such users then have no choice other than to deal with the CMO, and must, as …

Why Tariffs Aren’t Mandatory: Now the Factum Read more →

Blog, Copyright, Copyright Collectives, Stationers

Tagged with ,

On May 29, 2014 the Quill & Quire published an article with the sensational title “Why the loss of Access Copyright royalties could be devastating for educational publishers”, which advances the thesis and leads the reader to the supposedly inescapable conclusion that the decision of many educational institutions to sever their ties with Access Copyright has already wreaked havoc with publishers and will continue to be. This is a second of a series of posts in which why these thesis and conclusions do not hold up to scrutiny.