May26th

2014

May 26, 2014 @ 09:55:00
Canada finally ratifies WIPO treaties
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn GooglePlus Email Share It

On May 13, 2014 Canada deposited its instrument of ratification of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, adopted at Geneva on December 20, 1996.

Both treaties will enter into force in Canada on August 13, 2014.

Just about time we recognize the exclusive right to make works, phonograms and performances available on the Internet.

Categories:Intellectual Property:Copyright

May11th

2014

May 11, 2014 @ 10:35:00
My Book, the Ultimate Insider’s Guide to Intellectual Property, is now Amazon #1 Best-Seller
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn GooglePlus Email Share It

My book, The Ultimate Insider’s Guide to Intellectual Property, is now #1 Amazon Best-Seller!

#1 in Law:

The Ultimate Insider’s Guide to Intellectual Property is #1 Amazon Best-Seller in Law

#1 in Intellectual Property Law:

The Ultimate Insider’s Guide to Intellectual Property is #1 Amazon Best-Seller in Intellectual Property

#1 in Law & Media:

The Ultimate Insider’s Guide to Intellectual Property is #1 Amazon Best-Seller in Media & Law

If you are a business owner, you must read this book!

Categories:Intellectual Property:CopyrightIntellectual PropertyIP Strategy

Dec27th

2013

December 27, 2013 @ 06:00:00
New Supreme Court of Canada Decision on Copyright (Cinar Corporation v. Robinson) and BC Court of Appeal Affirms Important Trademark Decision
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn GooglePlus Email Share It

Who would have thought that the week before Christmas would be so fruitful on important decisions in the area of intellectual property.

First, the Supreme Court of Canada has delivered a landmark decision in Cinar Corporation v. Robinson. In it, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dealt with many crucial issues pertaining to how copyright cases will be resolved in the future:

      – the scope of protection afforded by the Copyright Act;

      – the meaning of the words “substantial part” that set out the threshold for copyright infringement;

      – rules regarding disgorgement of profits;

      – rules regarding non-pecuniary damages; and

      – rules regarding punitive damages.

Despite Supreme Court’s unanimity, this decision in fact further blurs the line between unprotectable ideas and protectable expression of ideas by adding a significant degree of subjectivity in the analysis. The Court refused the approach whereby the court first determines the original elements in the plaintiff’s work, then filters out unprotectable elements from that list, and, finally, compares the remaining protectable original features with what was actually used by the defendant. Instead, the Supreme Court preferred the holistic approach where “The character of the works will be looked at, and the court will in all cases look, not at isolated passages, but at the two works as a whole to see whether the use by the defendant has unduly interfered with the plaintiff’s right.”

This case likely turned on the single issue that defendants had access to the plaintiff’s work and knew that plaintiff would object to their use of it. The court wanted to land a helping hand to an author who failed to carry out a project whereas a very similar project was later carried out by several parties some of whom were originally involved in the plaintiff’s project.

It is what some lawyers call “the degree of sneakiness” that decided the case. In other words, the entire copyright law analysis only happened after the judges internally decided that the plaintiff should be rewarded and the defendants should be punished.

While I typically always support those whose rights are infringed in copyright law suits, this may be the case when bad facts make bad law, because I’m not sure that I agree (from the description of the two works, and without having had a chance to compare the actual works) that what was used was more than unprotectable idea.

Time will tell what this case will mean in terms of development of Canadian copyright law.

The second case is the case decided by BC Court of Appeal that affirmed the landmark decision of BC Supreme Court in Woodpecker Hardwood Floors (2000) Inc. v. Wiston International Trade Co..

I already wrote about the facts of the case with a brief analysis before, but briefly here they are again: a BC flooring company that’s been around for over a decade realized that its competitor, another flooring company from the same city trademarked the word “Woodpecker” as its own.

The dilemma – do we spend a ton of money on rebranding or do we spend a ton of money on lawyers to fight this through – was entirely avoidable. All the first company had to do was register its trademark first.

They decided to fight for their trademark. BC Supreme Court granted an injunction recognizing the first company’s prior right in the trademark. Now, the BC Court of Appeal has agreed.

Happy ending? Not really, unless you mean a happy ending for all lawyers involved in this case.

Now that the case has been through the BC Supreme Court level and the Court of Appeal level, the first company has probably spent close to 100 times the amount that it would have cost them to register their trademark when they were starting out.

If anything, it would have been a good insurance policy.

Remember, registering trademarks is within the reach of any business that’s more than just a hobby. It’s a long-term investment that is crucial for any business that spends time, money and energy on branding and marketing.

Now, that there is a way to register your trademarks with a Triple Peace-of-Mind Guarantee™, you are committing a crime against your business if you are not protecting its trademarkable assets!

Speaking of how we help our clients register trademarks, here’s a testimonial from another happy customer:

P.S. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and Happy Holidays!

Categories:Intellectual Property:CopyrightTrademarks
 Website Updates:More Cases Uploaded

Mar20th

2013

March 20, 2013 @ 15:45:00
Standard Agreement Templates - Content Creation and Copyright Assignment
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn GooglePlus Email Share It

Often, I get requests to draft a simple agreement whereby the business owner who paid or is about to pay for some content created specifically for that business would own copyright in what they pay for.

Just today, I got a call from an existing client. They hired a videographer to create videos for their business. Now the videographer is claiming that my client does not own copyright in the videos. However surprising this may be to most people, the videographer is correct, at least from the legal standpoint.

Unless there is an assignment of copyright in writing, the copyright remains with the person who created the work, in this case, the videos.

Often, the client’s situation does not justify hiring a lawyer to create a completely customized agreement.

So I decided to share the template that I developed as a result of many years of writing these agreements in different jurisdictions.

If you hired someone to create content for you or you are about to hire someone to create content for you and you don’t have a budget to document the transfer of intellectual property from your contractor to you, you should definitely check out these templates. They may not ideally fit your situation and are not offered as legal advice, but in my experience, they should take care of 90% of the situations that usually arise around such facts.

This is where you can download standard Content Creation and Copyright Assignment templates at a fraction of what it would cost you to have a lawyer draft a customized contract. Check out the previews and see for yourself that the level of details covered in these templates greatly exceeds anything that you can download for free on the Internet.

Hoping that this will be of value to you.

Categories:Intellectual Property:Copyright
 Values:EfficiencyInnovation
 Website Updates:Website UpdatesNew Feature

Mar11th

2013

March 11, 2013 @ 06:00:00
New Section 30.02 (Digital Reproduction of Works) - Good or Bad?
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn GooglePlus Email Share It

The new Copyright Act adds a new section 30.02 that virtually equates digital reproduction of works to photocopying (i.e. reprographic reproduction) for educational institutions.

The general idea is that if an educational institution has a license to make photocopies of works, then the institution may also make digital reproductions of these works and communicate such reproductions by telecommunication for an educational or training purpose.

The person who received such digital reproduction of a work is allowed to print one copy of it.

The educational institution is required to pay to the collective society the same license fees as in the case of the conventional photocopying license and to take steps to prevent unauthorized dissemination of the digital reproduction of the work.

Copyright owners whose rights are represented by a collective society that is authorized to grant licenses to photocopy these authors’ works may refuse to authorize the collective society to enter into digital reproduction agreements with respect to their works, but the default rule is that such permission is deemed to be granted.

Based on the provisions of paragraphs 30.02(4)(a) and 30.02(4)(b), it appears that this section will be of lesser importance once separate tariffs for digital reproduction have been certified.

This section also severely limits the remedies for unauthorized use of the works.

Because copyright owners at least have an opportunity to opt out from the application of this section, I would be happy with it if not for two issues:

First, I do not understand the reasoning behind curtailing the remedies of copyright owners in case their rights are infringed beyond what the exception has already taken away from them; and

Second, I would prefer some clarification as to how this new section is supposed to coexist with the addition of the word “education” to section 29 of the Act.

Speaking of the latter, I am getting many calls and emails with questions about whether this or that use can be justified under the “education” exception. Some are very creative in trying to justify what appears to be blatant copyright infringement under the pretense of having educational purposes.

If specific sections of the Copyright Act are meant to limit the application of s. 29 in that educational purposes are limited to those specific instances that are listed elsewhere in the Act, then the problem is of a much smaller caliber (albeit I still disapprove of the expansion of so-called “user rights”). If, on the other hand, s. 29 is to stand on its own in addition to all these specific instances then we are about to open the Pandora’s box.

BOTTOM LINE: Time will tell.

PS. The new Section 30.03 deals with tariffs. In a language whose clarity is only superior to that of the Income Tax Act, an attempt is made to specify what happens if a new tariff is introduced for digital reproduction or if the educational institution enters into an agreement that specifically deals with digital reproduction. The new section 30.03 is supposed to make it clear what happens with the license fees that the educational institution was paying under s. 30.02. The new section 30.03 may contain an answer to this question, but make it clear it does not...

Categories:Intellectual Property:Copyright
Additional Tags:New Copyright Act
Older entries…

YES, email me new issues of Mincov Law Blog!

We respect your email privacy


or subscribe to our

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and its receipt or viewing does not constitute, a solicitor-client relationship.

Logo

MINCOV LAW CORPORATION - Outside The Box Legal Solutions
©2011–2014 Mincov Law Corporation.
300 - 1055 W. Hastings St.
Vancouver, BC  V6E 2E9 Canada
Tel.:+1 778.869.7281
Fax: +1 888.767.7078