Copyright Archives - Barry Sookman

AI
Copyright

Generative AI and copyrights: My talk to the IPO

IPO Boston 2023

I was pleased earlier today to participate on a panel on generative AI and copyright at the 2023 Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) in Boston.

My co-panelists were Professor Jessica Silbey (Boston University), Troy Prince (Raytheon Technologies), and Edward Ryan (Tutunjian & Bitetto P.C.). The moderator was Jenevieve Maerker (Finneganm Henderson).

Our talk was preceded by a keynote talk by Shira Perlmutter (Registrar of the U.S. Copyright Office) on AI and copyright.

My talk focused on international perspectives.…

Copyright and GenAI

Copyright does not protect content produced by Generative AI (GenAI): Thaler v Perlmutter

It has ben a fundamental tenet of copyright law that for a work to be subject to copyright protection it must be the result of human authorship. The bar for protection is low and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In Canada, for example, skill and judgement is required. In the United States a minimal level of creativity is required. With the rise of generative artificial intelligence (aka generative AI or GenAI) questions have emerged as to whether content generated entirely using GenAI can be protected as work under copyright legislation.…

Bitcoin File Format protected by copyrght

Copyright

Copyright may subsist in Bitcoin file format: Wright v BTC Core

In a recent UK case, Wright & Ors v BTC Core & Ors [2023] EWHC 222 (Ch) (07 February 2023), Justice Mellor ruled that the Bitcoin file format could not be protected by copyright. He did so on the basis that the fixation requirement for copyright subsistence was not met.

In a blog post on the case, Bitcoin file format not protected by copyright: Wright v BTC Core, I wrote “the decision left me scratching my head” and argued, the case was wrongly decided.…

Sookman ALAI Copyright Year in Review

ALAI CANADA – ANNUAL MID-YEAR REVIEW OF CANADIAN COPYRIGHT LAW DEVELOPMENTS

I was very pleased to give a presentation to ALAI Canada on developments in Canadian copyright law (from May 2022-May 2023). Last year’s Annual Copyright Review can be accessed here.

These were the cases I talked about.

IMS Incorporated v. Toronto Regional Real Estate Board, 2023 FCA 70
Audax Architecture Inc. v. McCuaig, 2022 FC 1747
Whitehall Entertainment Incorporated v. Kafka Pictures Inc., 2022 BCPC 184
Fox Restaurant Concepts LLC v. 43 North Restaurant Group Inc., 2022 FC 1149
Tremblay v.…

Bitcoin File Format protected by copyrght

Copyright

Bitcoin file format not protected by copyright: Wright v BTC Core

Technologies associated with blockchains have raised many novel issues of law. One of the issues is whether copyright is capable of subsisting in file formats used in the Bitcoin System. This issue was raised in the recent U.K. case, Wright & Ors v BTC Core & Ors [2023] EWHC 222 (Ch) (07 February 2023). In what can only be described as a technical question of copyright law, Justice Mellor concluded that copyright did not exist in the file format because the fixation requirement for copyright subsistence was not met.…

Barry Sookman Supreme Court appellant lawyer

Supreme Court of Canada confirms all acts of making available are covered by Copyright Act: SOCAN v ESA

In a decision just released in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Entertainment Software Association, 2022 SCC 30, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Canada fully implemented its WIPO copyright Internet Treaty “making available” obligations through a combination of the communication to the public, reproduction, and authorization rights. In doing so, the Court held that any unauthorized act of making a work available online, and any subsequent unauthorized streaming or downloading of the work, are infringing.…

Copyright Year in Review 2021-2022

Copyright Year in Review 2021-2022

I had the pleasure earlier today to provide a talk to ALAI on “Copyright The Year in Review 2021-2022. I prepared an annotation of the cases covered which included the following cases:

Pyrrha Design Inc. v. Plum and Posey Inc., 2022 FCA 7

Trimble Solutions Corporation v. Quantum Dynamics Inc., 2021 FC 6

Patterned Concrete Mississauga Inc. v. Bomanite Toronto Ltd., 2021 FC 314

Arc En Ciel RH c. Services Swissnova inc., 2021 QCCS 1187, motion to dismiss appeal denied, Arc En Ciel RH c.…

Copyright and IOT and AI

Copyright, AI and IOT: my submission to the consultation

Here is a copy of my submission to the copyright consultation on the implications of AI and IOT on copyright.

Thank you for providing an opportunity to provide input into the Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IOT) copyright consultation.

The copyright consultation raises important issues. The government should be cautious before making any amendments to the Copyright Act given the complexity of the issues and the difficulty in assessing how the changes would work in practice.

Background

I am Senior counsel in the Technology Law Group of McCarthy Tetrault LLP.…

Copyright Potpourri 2020-2021: my ALAI Canada presentation

I had the pleasure of speaking earlier today at an ALAI Canada meeting to give a copyright law update for 2020-2021. The title of my talk was Copyright Potpourri. The cases canvassed were:

–York University v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, 2020 FCA 77

–York University, et al. v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, SCC Docket 39222

–Bell Media Inc. v. GoldTV.Biz, 2019 FC 1432

–TEKSAVVY SOLUTIONS INC. v. BELL MEDIA INC., ET AL Appeal (Copyright Act, FCA A-440-19

–Entertainment Software Assoc.…

Copyright Board making available right decision released

The Copyright Board just released its long awaited decision on the scope of the making available right under the Copyright Act. In a well reasoned and thorough decision, the Board ruled that the MAR right applies to the making available of both streams and downloads, acts that have to be exclusive rights in order for Canada to meet its international treaty obligations under the WCT and WPPT.

The Board summarized its reasons as follows:

As will be made clear from the reasons that follow, subsection 2.4(1.1) of the Act deems the act of placing a work or other subject-matter on a server of a telecommunication network in a way that a request from a member of the public triggers the transmission of that work or subject matter, including in the form of a stream or download, whether or not such a request ever takes place, to be a communication to the public by telecommunication.

…

Input your search keywords and press Enter.