Home

pdf

1. Section 43 1 Limitation or prescription period for civil remedies The limitation period set forth by section 43 1 only applies to copyright infringement not to other causes of action Credential Securities Inc v QTrade Canada Inc 2014 CarswellBC 536 B C S C 2014 03 03 Muir Master 38 Qtrade on the other hand submits that the amendments raise new causes of action that would substantially expand the pleadings and change the course of the action Qtrade submits that the new causes of action are statute barred by the provisions of the Copyright Act R S C 1985 c C 42 and the Limitation Act R S B C 1996 c 266 and therefore the amendments should only be granted if just and convenient to do so 55 The Copyright Act s 43 1 1 provides for a three year limitation period from the time the plaintiff knew of the alleged breach 56 Based on the transition provisions in s 30 of the new Limitation Act SBC 2013 c 13 the Limitation Act applicable to the claims other than copyright is the former act ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC Z 59 What is alleged here is wrongful access and misappropriation there is no suggestion of injury to property and the ap
2. Definition of every original work Who is the author of a web site What is the level of originality required for a web site to be protected Animal Welfare International Inc v W3 International Media Ltd 2014 CarswellBC 2902 B C S C 2014 10 01 Ross J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 463 In Slumber Magic Adjustable Bed Co Ltd v Sleep King Adjustable Bed Co Ltd 1984 1984 CanLII 54 BC SC 3 C P R 3d 81 at 84 1985 1 W W R 112 B C S C Madam Justice McLachlin as she then was held that provided work taste and discretion have entered into the composition that originality is established The Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada 2004 SCC 13 CanLll at para 25 held that the standard by which to judge originality can be measured as 25 The exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise While creative works will by MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC definition be original and covered by copyright creativity is not required to make a work original 464 The relevant considerations to determining originality were further exami
3. t he applicants were justified in issuing the application the materials disclosed a bona fide cause of action that was not frivolous or vexatious Morley v Morley 2013 ONSC 1595 Master 23 Counsel for Coloroso submits that the record here demonstrates that there was a compelling and cogent basis for bringing the injunction at the time it was brought agree As indicated above even without engaging in a full adjudication of the merits it is apparent that Coloroso had a serious copyright concern at the outset 24 While Faas partly conceded the copyright problems at the outset of the controversy and has been reasonable in now providing assurances to Coloroso the dynamics of the dispute were such that the parties did not come to their temporary resolution until just last month do not blame either party for the duration of the controversy Litigation is frequently a moving target for both sides It sometimes takes time for the process to work its way through to a consensual solution even a temporary one 25 Coloroso s withdrawal of the motion is premised on the parties having achieved a solution that they can each live with pending trial it will be up to the trial judge to make the ultimate decision as to whether an injunction is warranted In my view this is an appropriate case for the trial judge to determine the costs of the aborted interlocutory motion That judge will also be in the best position to determine how m
4. Section 70 15 Homologation The Board has jurisdcition to impose interest on late payments Collective Administration in Relations of Rights Under Sections 3 15 18 and 2 2014 CarswellNat 2978 Cop Bd 2014 08 08 the Board at paragraph 28 28 The provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan both objected to the provision for the interest on late payments on the grounds that it was unreasonable and or beyond the jurisdiction of the Copyright Board Interest on late payments provisions essentially identical to the one in the proposed media monitoring tariffs are common in tariffs certified by the Copyright Board Moreover the proposed reporting disclosure interest on late payments and indemnity obligations or essentially identical provisions have been part of the media monitoring tariffs since they were first certified in 2005 We therefore continue to certify a provision for interest for late payments in this tariff Section 70 2 Application to fix amount of royalties etc The decisions of the Board on question of law are reviewable on the standard of correctness and those of facts on the standard of reasonableness Canadian Broadcasting v Sodrac 2003 Inc 118 C P R 4th 79 F C A 2014 03 31 Pelletier J application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada filed 2014 CarswellNat 2092 S C C 2014 05 30 ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard
5. 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC E Section 2 Definition of copyright Copyright is an intangible London Life Insurance Company v Canada 2014 CarswellNat 1276 F C A 2014 04 29 Gauthier J 56 Incorporeal rights should not be confused with physical media For example copyright in a work is not seized by seizing the book itself Section 2 Definition of educational institution Private instructor does not qualify as an educational institution Van Helden v H 2014 CarswellNat 1977 T C C 2014 06 13 Miller J 16 agree with his comments Kam v H 2013 DTC 1218 TCC Favreau J at para 23 A review of the debates which took place in the House of Commons when the predecessor to subsection 118 5 1 was first proposed confirms that the term educational institution was not intended to apply to situations as in the present appeal 20 In conclusion the original intent of the tuition credit was to make post secondary education more accessible to students by lessening their financial burden Although subsection 118 5 1 of the Income Tax Act should be interpreted broadly it is clear that Parliament did not intend that the provision should apply to fees which students paid for private piano lessons at an instructor s home Section 2 Definition of every original work He who creates is the author Flansberry Kapture Design v 65488
6. News Reporting Using a photograph to illustrate a news report on a matter of public interest may be fair use Messier v Le quotidien La Presse 2014 CanLll 23871 Que Conseil de presse du Qu bec Comit des plaintes 2014 03 21 ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 25 Selon les plaignants la photo accompagnant l article est un choix ditorial tendancieux visant faire mal para tre M Lesage Ils soutiennent qu il existe des photos plus avantageuses de M Lesage Ils soulignent galement que la photo a t prise sur la page Facebook de M Lesage sans son consentement ce qui constituerait une violation de la propri t intellectuelle 26 Me Bourbeau de La Presse soutient que l usage d une photographie tir e d une page Facebook constitue une utilisation quitable au sens de la Loi sur le droit d auteur et ne constitue pas une violation de droits d auteur Il pr cise que le guide de d ontologie du Conseil de presse pr voit que la libert de presse et le droit du public l information autorisent les m dias choisir et diffuser les photographies qu ils jugent d int r t public et que ceux ci doivent conserver leur enti re libert r dactionnelle en la mati re II ajoute que c est M Lesage qui a choisi cette photographie comme image principale pour son profil Facebook 27 Le Conseil constate que la photo du profil Facebook de M Lesage tait publique s lectionn e par lui m me et accessible MONT
7. Private Copying 2015 2016 2014 CarswellNat 5162 Cop Bd 2014 12 12 36 Section 84 of the Act requires that we apportion the levy among authors performers and makers Section 89 No copyright etc except by statute OPCA rides again Common law Copyright Notice Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky 2014 CarswellAlta 2321 Alta Q B 2014 12 16 Schlosser Master 82 However the Common law Copyright Notice does not merely stop with Ms Rogozinsky s name but also extends to her biological and physical properties para 5 and absolute control and mastery over the peaceful possession of his or her body mind and mental facilities which the bank is apparently interfering with by asking that the debt be repaid 83 Other courts have been confronted with the same bizarre inexplicable claims for example Gravlin et al v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al at para 9 Dempsey v Envision Credit Union 2006 BCSC 1324 CanLll 2006 Carswell BC 2142 60 BCLR 4th 309 Hajdu v Ontario Director Family Responsibility Office 2012 ONSC 1835 CanLll at paras 23 25 Squamish Indian Band v Capilano Mobile Park 2011 BCSC 470 CanLIl at para 62 affirmed 2012 BCCA 126 CanLll 318 BCAC 239 In each case the court concluded these nonsensical documents and the associated claims were entirely without merit 84 Dennis Larry Meads the OPCA litigant who was the subject of Associate Chief Justice Rooke s co
8. the Opponent is required to establish i copyright in its tree design and ii that the Mark is a substantial copying of this tree design see Jones v Dragon Tales Production Inc 2002 27 CPR 4th 369 TMOB 28 Attached as Exhibit A to the affidavit of Monika Patel is a copy of a copyright assignment from the business records of the Opponent in which Tristan Kent of Kent England assigns to the Opponent all copyright rights in all countries and territories of the world in the works as defined therein including the Opponent s FSC and Tree Design The Opponent submits that the document speaks for itself and shows that the Opponent has copyright in its tree design and is the owner of the copyright MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC ii 29 The Opponent further submits that the Mark is a substantial copying of the Opponent s mark because both tree designs incorporate the following unique elements a hollow silhouette of a tree an opening at the bottom of the design and the use of a single continuous line in the design 30 In my view there are too many points of dissimilarity between the Mark and the Opponent s tree design and too few points of similarity between them for me to conclude there i
9. 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC The assignment of copyright must be in writing but not the rigfht to sell copyrighted material Wanless v Mayfair Music Publications Inc 2014 CarswellOnt 12291 Ont Sup Ct 2014 09 08 Andr J 18 Counsel for Mr Loweth contends that it is pointless to grant Ms Wanless motion to amend her statement of claim given that by virtue of section 13 4 of the Copyright Act the Act the agreement between Ms Wanless and the late John Loweth had to be in writing in order to be valid 19 disagree Section 13 4 of the Act indicates that any assignment of a copyright must be in writing to be valid The section does not state that an agreement between two persons in which one gives the other the right to sell copyrighted material must be in writing To that extent Ms Wanless oral contract with John Loweth is not invalid Section 13 Ownership of copyright He who received a plagiarized expert report may obtain the reimbursement of what he paid Hendricks v Wayne Arendse amp JBC International Forensic Solutions 2014 O J 4702 Ont Sup Ct Small Claims 2014 09 29 Klein D J 18 Ultimately the expert Vormbaum concludes Based on the information it
10. 2014 01 15 Dallaire J e Section 38 270 Ce faisant le d fendeur s est appropri ill galement un texte fruit des efforts et d un labeur labor s sur de nombreuses ann es Le tribunal arbitrera une somme de 15 000 pouvant comprendre que tous ces efforts lorsque copi s et dupliqu s pr sentent la fois un impact direct et indirect sur une usurpation de la propri t intellectuelle ce qui est la fois choquant en raison des efforts soutenus et vexant quant l effort intellectuel de conception Cette somme comporte la fois un montant li au co t d laboration la demanderesse ayant d termin une valeur de 218 000 ses tats financiers et un autre sur l aspect de la violation 1 Statutory damages The conduct of the parties could be taken into conisderation in the assesment of statutory damages A condemnation to statutory damages is not a bar to punitive damages Trout Point Lodge Ltd v Handshoe 2014 CarswellNS 110 S C N S 2014 02 14 Coady J 26 find that Mr Handshoe s conduct towards the applicants over the past few years amounts to outrageous and highly reprehensible conduct The four 4 infringements herein must be viewed on top of the defamation that continues to this date in the face of Justice Hood s injunction This is a case for generous statutory damages as well as punitive damages 27 award the following statutory damages ROBIC LLP www robic ca inf
11. 2014 03 28 33 Lachance v Productions Marie Eykel inc 2012 CarswellQue 5028 Que Sup Ct 2012 03 150 affd 2014 QCCA 158 2014 CarswellQue 637 J E 2014 304 239 A C W S 3d 992 http canlii ca fr qc qcca doc 2014 2014qcca158 2014qcca158 html Que C A 2014 01 30 34 La Presse v Yahoo Qu bec 2014 CanLil 76357 http www canlii org fr qc qecpq doc 201 4 201 4canlii76357 201 4canlii763 57 html Que Conseil de presse 2014 12 05 35 Leuthold v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 104 C P R 4th 401 F C 2002 06 14 affirmed 2014 CarswellNat 2246 242 A C W S 3d 179 462 N R 181 656 2014 F C J 2014 FCA 173 http www canlii org en ca fca doc 2014 2014fca173 2014fca173 html F C A 2014 06 27 motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada filed 2014 CarswellNat 3986 S C C 2014 09 30 36 London Life compagnie d assurance vie v Canada 2014 CarswellNat 1276 2014 CarswellNat 2977 2014 FCA 106 2014 6 C T C 55 2014 D T C 5108 242 AC W S 3d 700 461 N R 138 http www canlii org fr ca caf doc 201 4 201 4caf106 201 4caf106 pdf F C A 2014 04 29 37 Media Monitoring 2011 2016 Re 2014 CarswellNat 2978 http www cb cda gc ca decisions 2014 media monitoring august 08 pdf Cop Bd 2014 08 02 38 Mefia v LaSalle College International Vancouver Inc 2014 CarswellBC 2454 2014 B C W L D 7126 2014 B C W L D 7129 2014 B C W L D 7220 2014 B C W L D 7221 245 A
12. SODRAC Inc 2014 CarswellNat 4094 FCA 2014 10 20 No l J reversing SODRAC Tariff No 5 2009 2012 2013 C B D 6 Cop Bd 2013 04 26 ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 68 The Board has the authority to reopen a prior decision pursuant to section 66 52 of the Copyright Act or based on the well established case law that entitles administrative tribunals to correct slips or other types of errors committed inadvertently In this case the Board authorized itself to reopen the proceedings in order to correct what it itself identified as a palpable error 69 In my opinion the Board erred in assuming the authority to reopen the matter on this ground The correction of a palpable error is not one of the recognized exceptions to the functus officio rule nor is it a ground for redetermination under section 66 52 of the Copyright Act which authorizes the Board to vary its decision to take into consideration a change in circumstances postdating the decision 73 As acknowledged by the Board the error it committed was not a simple clerical error and contrary to its assertion its source was not inadvertence or distraction Decision to Reopen at para 27
13. Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC i 27 The Board is unusual among specialized administrative tribunals in that its decisions on question of law are reviewable on the standard of correctness see Hogers Communications Inc v Society of Composers Author sand Music Publishers of Canada 2012 SCC 35 2012 2 S C R 283 at paragraphs 10 15 Questions of fact are only reviewable if they are made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it the tribunal see section 18 1 4 d of the Federal Courts Act R S C 1985 c F 7 In Canada Citizenship and Immigration v Khosa 2009 SCC 12 2009 1 S C R 339 Khosa the Supreme Court of Canada described this provision as providing legislative precision to the reasonableness standard of review of factual issues falling under the Federal Courts Act Khosa at paragraph 46 Section 73 Certification Tariffs are prospective and of general application Public Performance of Musical Works Re Statement of Royalties to Be Collected by SOCAN for the Public Performance or the Communication to the Public by Telecommunication in Canada of Musical or Dramatico Musical Works Tariff 4 Concerts 2009 2014 CarswellNat 2802 Cop Bd 2014 07 25 54 Prospective users who did not file a timely O
14. la LSA Cette interpr tation est conforme la jurisprudence Fn8 Union des artistes UDA c Louis Philippe M tail faisant affaire sous le nom Animation d Autrefois 2010 QCCRT 0134 D T E 2010T 428 paragr 93 et n est pas remise en question 35 La premi re composante a toujours t au c ur de la reconnaissance du statut de producteur Fn9 Union des artistes UDA c Louis Philippe M tail faisant affaire sous le nom Animation d Autrefois 2010 QCCRT 0134 D T E 2010T 428 paragr 97 99 C est d ailleurs ce que souligne le juge Sen cal de la Cour sup rieure dans 2623 3494 Qu bec inc Caf Sarajevo c Commission de reconnaissance des associations d artistes et des associations de producteurs lorsqu il crit que l a r tention de services est donc au coeur de la relation producteur artiste Celle ci ne peut exister sans celle l Fn10 2623 3494 Qu bec inc Caf Sarajevo c Commission de reconnaissance des associations d artistes et des associations de producteurs J E 2004 606 D T E 2004T 265 paragr 57 36 Cette r tention de services renvoie la notion de contr le Selon cette d finition un producteur doit tre assimil un maitre d oeuvre c est dire la personne qui assume la direction et le contr le d une production musicale ou plus pr cis ment celle qui voit l laboration du projet et sa r alisation Dans cette optique le producteur est notamment responsable
15. www canlii org en ca fct doc 20 14 201 4fc944 2014fc944 html F C 2014 10 06 14 Decision No 936 14 2014 ONWSIAT 1332 http www canlii org en on onwsiat doc 2014 2014onwsiat1332 2014onw siat1332 html Ont Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 3 2014 06 18 15 Denturist Group of Ontario v Denturist Association of Canada 2014 CarswellNat 4191 246 A C W S 3d 440 2014 F C J 1077 2014 FC 989 http www canlii org en ca fct doc 2014 2014fc989 2014fc989 html F C 2014 10 16 16 Diffusion Dimedia inc v Librairie Renaud Bray inc 2014 CarswellQue 5833 2014 QCCS 2670 244 A C W S 3d 188 EYB 2014 238487 http www canlii org fr qc qccs doc 201 4 201 4qccs2670 201 4qccs2670 ht ml Que Sup Ct 2014 06 12 17 dm drogerie markt GmbH Co KG v 911979 Alberta Ltd 2014 CarswellNat 1300 2014 CarswellNat 1301 2014 T M O B 5059 2014 TMOB 59 http www canlii org en ca tmob doc 20 14 201 4tmob59 201 4tmob59 html Opp Bd 2014 03 12 18 Faas v Coloroso 2014 CarswellOnt 10315 2014 ONSC 4494 2014 O J 3571 243 A C W S 3d 34 http www canlii org en on onsc doc 201 4 201 40nsc4494 20 140nsc449
16. 13 c est la personne qui a command la photographie qui est titulaire du droit d auteur lorsqu elle a vers une somme d argent pour l obtenir Tel que dit plus haut la Loi sur la modernisation du droit d auteur Fn 3 L C 2012 ch 20 a abrog ces deux dispositions mais pr voit aux articles 59 et 60 que ceux ci demeurent malgr tout en vigueur lorsque vient le temps de d terminer le propri taire d un droit pourvu que la photographie ait t command e avant l entr e en vigueur de celle ci ce qui est le cas en l esp ce 43 La cons quence en est que la preuve tablissant que la demanderesse a command et pay la photographie en 2006 elle est d tentrice du droit d auteur son gard Section 13 Ownership of copyright An assignment or grant must be in writing The effect of a confirmatory assignment is better decided by the trial judge Groupe Innomax inc v Habitations Rouma inc 2014 CarswellQue 4059 Que Sup Ct 2014 04 03 Picard J ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC ii 10 La concession d int r t laquelle r f re cette disposition Subsection 13 4 vise la licence exclusive par opposition la simple licence non exclusive F
17. 201 4fca235 20 14fca235 html F C A 2014 10 20 8 Canadian Broadcasting Corp v Sodrac 2003 Inc 2014 CarswellNat 808 2014 CAF 84 2014 FCA 84 118 C P R 4th 79 241 A C W S 3d 434 457 N R 156 2014 F C J 321 http www canlii org en ca fca doc 201 4 201 4fca84 201 4fca84 html F C A 2014 03 31 leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada granted 2014 CarswellNat 3299 2014 S C C A 249 S C C 9 Cayouette v RNC Media inc 2014 J Q 13537 2014 QCCQ 8301 2014EXP 3258 EYB 2014 245169 http www canlii org fr qc qccq doc 201 4 201 4qccq8301 2014qccq8301 h tml Que Ct Small Claims 2014 09 22 10 Chayer v Messier 2014 CarswellQue 860 2014 QCCS 357 240 A C W S 3d 249 J E 2014 488 EYB 2014 232907 http canlii ca fr qc qcecq doc 201 4 201 4qccq242 201 4qccq242 html Que Ct 2014 01 27 11 Collective Administration in Relations of Rights Under Sections 3 15 18 and 2 2014 CarswellNat 2978 2014 C B D 5 http www cb cda gc ca decisions 2014 media_monitoring_august_08 pdf Cop Bd 2014 08 08 12 Credential Securities Inc v QTrade Canada Inc 2014 CarswellBC 536 2014 BCSC 345 238 A C W S 3d 315 2014 B C W L D 2662 2014 B C W L D 2668 2014 B C J 370 http canlii ca en bc bcsc doc 20 14 201 4bcsc345 201 4bcsc345 html B C S C 2014 03 03 13 Davydiuk v Internet Archive Canada 2014 CarswellNat 4162 246 A C W S 3d 568 2014 FCJ 1066 2014 FC 944 http
18. 49 As a result am unable to accept the Broadcasters argument that the comments about technological neutrality in ESA have changed the legal landscape to the point where the Board erred in finding that incidental copies are protected by copyright The Broadcasters argument with respect to technological neutrality fails Section 3 Copyright in works The principle of technologically neutral interpretation is again before the Supreme Court of Canada Canadian Broadcasting v Sodrac 2003 Inc 118 C P R 4th 79 F C A 2014 03 31 Pelletier J Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada granted 2014 S C C A 249 S C C Case summary as prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada Law Branch for information purposes only Intellectual property law Judicial review Copyright Licenses Licensing societies Royalties Ephemeral copies Application by broadcaster for review of licenses issued by Copyright Board allowed in part Collective society imposing royalties on producers of content and broadcasters Licences allow collective society to collect royalties for copies incidental to use of new broadcast technologies Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to apply the principle of technological neutrality in its interpretation and application of the Copyright Act R S C 1985 c C 42 Whether the Court of Appeal erred by adopting a non technologically
19. Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC si 119 would have not exercised these options in the case at bar because think the Settlement Agreement is not fair to the Class but the court should have been given the option and the Settlement cannot be approved for this reason alone Section 34 Copyright civil remedies No injunction to issue if it is more likely that the infringement will not occur again Soci t canadienne des auteurs compositeurs et diteurs de musique c 9004 1922 Qu bec inc Bar Asserie 2014 QCCS 1512 Que Sup Ct 2014 03 31 Morrison J 47 Vu l absence de d bat juridique au moins selon la preuve le Tribunal est d avis qu une injonction n est pas n cessaire et n est pas appropri e ce stade De plus une injonction pour l avenir ne devrait pas tre ordonn e par le Tribunal simplement comme p nalit pour le pass Section 34 Copyright civil remedies Plagiarism could lead to the lost of administrative benefits Decision No 936 14 2014 ONWSIAT 1332 Ont Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal 2014 06 18 Josefo vice chair 21 There were various documents pertaining to the worker s purported plagiarism of materials while attending LMR which plagiarism ostensibly continued despite the worker having been explained abou
20. E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC i A C W S 3d 185 2014 FC 450 http decisions fct cf gc ca fc cf decisions en 72202 1 document do F C 2014 05 09 25 Groupe Innomax inc v Habitations Rouma inc 2014 CarswellQue 4059 EYB 2014 236618 243 A C W S 3d 430 2014 J Q 3859 2014 QCCS 1790 http www canlii org fr qc qccs doc 201 4 201 4qccs1790 2014qccs1 790 p df Que Sup Ct 2014 04 03 26 Hayward Industries inc v Equipements de piscine Carvin inc 2014 CarswellQue 5143 2014 QCCS 2400 243 A C W S 3d 58 EYB 2014 237915 http www canlii org fr qc qccs doc 201 4 201 4qccs2400 201 4qccs2400 ht ml Que Sup Ct 204 05 27 27 Hendricks v Arendse 2014 OJ 4702 2014 CanLil 57551 http www canlii org en on onscsm doc 201 4 201 4canlii57551 201 4canlii 57551 html Ont Sup Ct Small Claims 2014 09 29 28 J v M 117 C P R 4th 409 2014 CarswellBC 168 2014 BCSC 89 237 A C W S 3d 265 2014 B C W L D 2650 2014 B C W L D 2571 2014 B C W L D 2654 2014 B C W L D 2595 2014 B C W L D 2652 2014 B C W L D 2655 2014 B C W L D 2596 2014 B C J 116 http canlii ca en bc bcsc doc 201 4 201 4bcsc89 201 4bcsc89 html B C S C 2014 01 23 29 Jules Jordan Video inc v 144942 C
21. IDP are what distinguish Epsilon from Omega Therefore even if she were the sole author of Epsilon it appears to me that this compilation could only have been created in the context of that employment and at a time when POPS was dormant Under subsection 13 3 of the Act IDP is in the absence of an agreement to the contrary the first owner of the copyright see paragraphs 74 to 76 above Section 13 Ownership of copyright An assignment must be in writing Flansberry Kapture Design v 6548890 Canada inc Turbo Marketing 2014 CarswellQue 11833 Que Ct 2014 06 01 Lapointe J 77 L article 13 4 de la Loi pr voit Le titulaire du droit d auteur sur une oeuvre peut c der ce droit Plus loin l article pr voit express ment mais la cession ou la concession n est valable que si elle est r dig e par crit et sign e par le titulaire du droit qui en fait l objet 78 Rien de tel ne ressort de la preuve II n y eut aucun tel crit pas plus qu un contrat entre les parties r gissant l ensemble de leurs relations ce qui n est pas particuli rement troublant en soi D ailleurs l absence d crit rend plut t vraisemblable la conclusion que le graphiste tait un entrepreneur ou prestataire de service dans un cr neau singulier r git par les dispositions sur les contrats d entreprise et de service articles 2098 et suivants C c Q 79 Dans un tel contexte l absence de cession par crit est fa
22. Ltd v Alfresh Beverages Canada Corp 2002 O J No 4116 para 9 U of T relies on its interpretation of the licensing agreement suggesting that there was an implied term that Access Copyright could not use this material in the manner that they are attempting in this case While U of T has a valid argument it MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 59 is not one that convinces me that they are clearly right and almost certain to be successful at trial They have not demonstrated a strong prima facie case am not satisfied that U of T has shown that it will suffer irreparable harm if the interim injunction is not granted A change in the Board rates for the years 2011 to 2013 which is the subject matter before the Board will never directly affect U of T U of T submitted that the use of this information before the Board may hypothetically affect it by the setting of rates in future years This calls for speculation and conjecture and is not evidence to support the proposition that U of T will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted Finally on a balance of convenience the respondent would suffer more prejudice by not being able to use this information before the Board than U of T wou
23. an exclusive right to deal with the protected work Flansberry Kapture Design v 6548890 Canada inc Turbo Marketing 2014 CarswellQue 11833 Que Ct 2014 06 01 Lapointe J 70 Le d bat qui reste est celui de la titularit du droit d auteur Cette question peut trouver r ponse en d terminant d abord qui est l auteur des travaux et ensuite si les droits de l auteur ont t c d s L article 3 L d a cerne l ampleur du droit d auteur et son importance en un principe clair Le droit d auteur est le droit exclusif de produire ou de reproduire une oeuvre sous une forme mat rielle art 3 L d a Section 3 Copyright in works Infringement involves the reproduction of an important part of the protected work Animal Welfare International Inc v W3 International Media Ltd 2014 CarswellBC 2902 B C S C 2014 10 01 Ross J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 468 The final requirement to establish that a breach of copyright has occurred is that the original work which was copied was actually substantially reproduced in the copied work and not just reproduced in discrete parts The Court in British Columbia Jockey Club v Standen 1983 CanLII 322 BC SC 1983 4 W W R 537 73 C P R 2d 164 B C S C aff d 1985 CanLil 591 BC CA 1985 6 W W R 683 8 C P R 3d 283 B C C A confirmed that substantial as used in s 3 of the CA Copyright Act does not mean identical Text MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square
24. by SOCAN for the Public Performance or the Communication to the Public by ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC ii Telecommunication in Canada of Musical or Dramatico Musical Works Tariff 4 Concerts 2009 2014 CarswellNat 2802 Cop Bd 2014 07 25 54 Prospective users who did not file a timely Objection are not official objectors However tariffs are prospective and of general application in that the Board imposes obligations on absent users Some account must therefore be taken of the interests of those who are not before us and who will be affected by our decision Section 68 Board to consider proposed tariffs and objections Tariffs are of general application Board will not render declaratory judgments Public Performance of Musical Works Re SOCAN Tariffs 22 D 1 Audiovisual webcasts and 22 D 2 Audiovisual user generated content for theyears 2007 to 2013 2014 CarswellNat 2616 Cop Bd 2014 07 18 the Board 49 We reject most of Facebook s arguments for the following reasons The Board has long held that when it certifies SOCAN tariffs these are tariffs of general application Fni5 See for example Arbitration between SODRAC and CBC Ast
25. c Edimag inc et Hobi CAQ 3 avril 2003 Can LII 17515 paragr 18 20 et 49 Section 13 Ownership of copyright A copyright licence is not a sale of goods Leuthold v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 2014 CarswellNat 2246 F C A 2014 06 27 Pelletier J affirming 104 C P R 4th 401 F C 2002 06 14 motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada filed 2014 CarswellNat 3986 S C C 2014 09 30 27 A licence agreement is not a sale of goods no property in goods is transferred as a result of a licence agreement All that is conveyed is a right to use the property which is subject to the grantor s copyright in certain ways Furthermore an intangible such as an interest in copyright is not a good see H v Cacciatore 161 OAC 2002 O J No 2366 at paragraph 14 29 Ms Leuthold also argues that the Newsworld broadcast was not covered by the Stills Licence because it was in contravention of Newsworld s operating licence which prohibits the simultaneous broadcasting of programming on the CBC regular network and on Newsworld do not find this argument persuasive as regulatory practices are not dispositive of copyright issues Section 13 Ownership of copyright The interpretation of a contract is a matter to be decided under the law of the province Planification Organisation Publications Syst mes POPS Lt e v 9054 8181 Qu bec Inc 124 C P R 4th 161 F C A 2014 07 25 Gauthier J v
26. class member a surveyor would have to own the copyright to her plan of survey Yet by virtue of the defences asserted including s 12 of the Copyright Act ownership could not be determined until some of the common issues were also determined Such a class definition is not permissible 49 agree with the Appellant that the revised class definition is no longer merits based The Respondent submits that the phrase ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 74 whose plan of survey implies that the class member actually owns the copyright disagree To qualify as a class member a person must either be the plan s author the authors employer or the assignee of an author or employee Further the plan in question must have appeared in the Respondent s electronic database and been prepared on or before the certification date Section 41 23 Protection of separate rights To be entitled to the remedies provided by the Act the plaintiff must be the copyright owner or have a grant of interest in the copyright Groupe Innomax inc v Habitations Rouma inc 2014 CarswellQue 4059 Que Sup Ct 2014 04 03 Picard J 11 Par ailleurs l article 41 23 de la Loi pr voit q
27. du choix des musiciens et du financement du spectacle ce qui inclut la r mun ration des musiciens et tous les risques financiers li s la production du spectacle Fn1 1 Guilde des musiciens du Qu bec c Chacra D T E 2001T 346 Section 2 Definition of photograph A commercial photograph is a protected work Labrecque O Sauna v Trudel Centre Bellaza s e n c 2014 QCCQ 2595 Que Ct Small Claims 2014 03 28 Gervais J ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 25 53 La conclusion tant que le clich photographique dont il est question ici est une ceuvre prot g e s offre au propri taire de ce droit plusieurs options Section 2 Definition of work of joint authorship A work of joint authorship is not a collective work Lachance v Productions Marie Eykel inc 2014 CarswellQue 637 Que C A 2014 01 30 the Court confirming 2012 CarswellQue 5028 Que Sup Ct 2012 03 15 17 Le premier cible la d termination factuelle de la juge qui dans ses motifs crit que l appelant est l un des auteurs de l oeuvre pr cit e au sens de la LDA La qualification d oeuvre collective qui apparait dans les motifs est inexacte mais une lectu
28. in the most minimal way possible as discussed in paras 42 to 45 of BMG BMG Canada Inc v Doe 2005 FCA 193 Section 35 Liability for ingringement He who plagiarizes must pay Labrecque O Sauna v Trudel Centre Bellaza s e n c 2014 QCCQ 2595 Que Ct Small Claims 2014 03 28 Gervais J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 68 56 On comprend de cette disposition que le l gislateur a voulu que celui qui ne respecte pas le droit d autrui et s approprie une ceuvre qui n est pas la sienne soit oblig de payer un d dommagement notamment en versant la portion de l avantage p cuniaire qu il en a retir 57 Le r sultat en est que si pour des fins commerciales un individu ou une entreprise utilise le fruit du travail d une autre personne il devra indemniser celle ci la hauteur de l avantage que cette utilisation lui a procur 58 Par contre si dans certains cas un quantum peut ais ment tre tabli dans d autres l exercice est plus ardu Section 35 Liability for Infringement For an equitable set off to be applicable the claims must be closely connected Poss Design Limited v Beograd Machine amp Tools Co Ltd 2014 Carswe
29. l existence des trois conditions donnant ouverture une telle application au b n fice de l employeur 12 De surcro t maintes reprises durant son t moignage Fn 7 Voir notamment interrogatoire en chef et contre interrogatoire pp 719 721 p 758 p 764 p 773 pp 785 789 p 882 et 883 p 894 l appelant a admis que c est son employeur qui seul avait le droit sur l uvre et partant le droit d en exploiter les droits d riv s Section 13 Ownership of copyright Statutory provisions in regards of copyright ownership may be varied by contract Ahern v 1772887 Ontario Ltd Mariage Qu bec 2014 QCCQ 973 Que Ct 2014 02 05 Richard J 21 Finalement en annexe la facture du 17 mai 2007 M Ahern d crit l entente verbale intervenue avec une repr sentante de Mariage Qu bec par laquelle il vend ses droits de reproduction des photographies au magazine Mariage Qu bec ou pour toute autre publication de ce magazine venir et non pour toute autre utilisation i e Jean Yves Ahern garde cependant le copyright sur ces photos et ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 36 il se r serve le droit d utiliser les dites photos a titre promotionnel e
30. of potentially innocent users of the internet versus the right of copyright holders to enforce their rights The Court ought to balance these rights in assessing the remedy to be granted Where evidence suggests that an improper motive may be lurking in the actions of a copyright holder plaintiff the more stingent the order However it would only be in a case where there was compelling evidence of improper motive on behaif of a plaintiff in seeking to obtain information about alleged infringers that a Court might consider denying the motion entirely The Copyright Act engages the Court to enforce copyright and the rights that go with the creation of copyrighted works Absent a clear improper motive the Court should not hesitate to gravide remedies to copyright holders whose works have been infringed MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 57 134 In summary the following is a non exhaustive list of considerations which flow from cases in the U S UK and Canada a b The moving party must demonstrate a bonafide case Putting safeguards in place so that alleged intiingers receiving any demand letter from a party obtaining an order under Rule 238 or a Norwich Order not be intimidated into making a payment without t
31. order to produce the funds required to provide an equitable remuneration those who perform the recordings in public are liable to pay royalties to the collective society authorized to collect them Subsection 20 1 sets out the eligibility criteria for equitable remuneration and the conditions under which the right applies the maker of a sound recording must be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident or in the case of a corporation have its headquarters in Canada or the fixations for the recording must have occurred in Canada Section 19 Right to remuneration Canada Only a collective society can collect the equitable remuneration Public Performance of Sound Recordings Re Re Sound No Tariff 8 Non interactive and semi interactive webcasts 2009 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1577 Cop Bd 2014 05 16 7 Streaming music over the Internet can involve as many as six rights or sets of rights Fn7 For a fuller description of these rights and of the collective societies that administer them see Commercial Radio Tariff SOCAN 2008 2010 Re Sound 2008 2011 CSI 2008 2012 AVLA SOPROQ 2008 201 1 Artistl 2009 2011 9 July 2010 Copyright Board Decision at paras 8 to 13 Commercial Radio 2010 These proceedings only concern the equitable remuneration to which performers and makers are entitled when a published sound recording of a musical work is communicated to the public by telecommunication Fn8 Act s 19 1 Th
32. position she was taking made commercial sense Had she done so she might have viewed the CBC s offer in a different light As a result do not believe that the fact that Ms Leuthold recovered an ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 62 amount in the general area of the CBC s offer is of any assistance to her 9 Ms Leuthold then argues that the Trial Judge had he decided not to award double costs should have awarded her costs as the successful litigant Ms Leuthold unfortunately is engaged in wishful thinking The Rules provide for the making of a formal offer of settlement with cost consequences if the offer is not accepted That is what happened here It does little good to argue after the fact that no effect should be given to Rule 420 10 Ms Leuthold argues that the law is clear that costs are not to be used to penalize a party nor are they to be punitive or crippling in nature She argues that an award of costs of some 80 000 is punitive and a penalty for a person whose gross annual income is approximately 20 000 per year 11 agree with Ms Leuthold s statements of principle but those principles have to be a
33. the Certificates The technical libraries became part of the project but only by way of a free license 30 There is no evidence that the Certificates were only to cover the technical libraries The evidence suggests that they covered the work done after the Memorandum came into effect 31 Therefore the Certificates should have reflected the co ownership of the Applicant and Respondent Section 62 Regulations The powers to regulate shall be within the constraints of that legislated jurisdiction This principle apply to the Governor in Council the Ministers and the Copyright Board Telus v Canada Attorney General 2014 CarswellNat 1 F C 2014 01 02 Strickland J 83 The Minister s authority derives from statute and the Minister can only act within the constraints of that legislated jurisdiction In Vaziri above Vaziri v Canada Minister of Citizenship and Immigration 2006 FC 1159 Justice Snider quoted the following from Greenisle Environmental Inc v Prince Edward Island 2005 PEIJ No 41 QL 2005 PESCTD 33 at para 17 17 it is a fundamental principle that executive powers are granted by statute and defined and limited by statute A statutory delegate may make a decision or rule only if authorized by statute to do so A statutory delegate has no inherent authority ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montre
34. the aggravating factors of Mr Strowbridge s extensive record for economic type offences and the fact that he was serving a conditional sentence at the time he committed these offences as well as the warnings he received about selling counterfeit products make incarceration appropriate as federal Crown counsel argued In this regard note the comments by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R v Bui 2001 B C J No 1574 to the effect that the imposition of a second conditional sentence on a person who offends while serving a conditional sentence should be reserved for the rarest of cases would not state the point quite as strongly Nevertheless if an offender commits an offence while serving a conditional sentence especially an offence of similar type to the one for which he is already serving a conditional sentence he is demonstrating at least to some degree that he is not able to abide by the terms of a conditional sentence thereby suggesting that an additional conditional sentence is not appropriate note this was the approach taken by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in R v Perrin 2012 NSCA 85 CanLll 2012 N S J No 443 2012 NSCA 85 in which the court remarked that an offender who reoffends while serving a conditional sentence would ordinarily attract a significant denunciating and deterrent sentence for the new offence 51 In Mr Strowbridge s case his financial situation especially his financial
35. the extent of the Board s powers At a minimum we could encourage webcasters to apply technical measures to prevent stream ripping by offering them a MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 86 discount However we will not do so in this instance for the following reasons First sufficient doubts were raised about the feasibility of some measures to require further evidence before they can be imposed or encouraged Second there is no evidence that stream ripping is in fact a problem in Canada Third some reproductions of streamed content almost certainly involve users rights e g reproducing a stream as part of fair dealing for an allowable purpose the exercise of which should be allowed for free Fourth the SRPC and other technical measures seek to protect rights which are not targeted by this tariff and which are not administered by Re Sound as we said in paragraph 90 above this a matter better pursued by the labels in the free market using the exclusive reproduction right unless an intervention on our part becomes absolutely necessary to restore balance in the market Section 68 Board to consider proposed tariffs and objections Tariffs shall be fair and equitable for all He Sound No Tariff
36. to act on their behalf with respect to their copyrights so assigned or authorized Collective societies must either operate a licensing scheme for a repertoire of artists works whereby the society determines the conditions under which it will authorize the use of such works or collect and distribute royalties payable under the Copyright Act by users of such works 13 Finally all parties interveners and the Tribunal do not dispute that scale agreements under the SAA do not apply to collective societies governed by the Copyright Act Section 2 Definition of compilation To attract copyright protection a compilation must also be original Denturist Group of Ontario v Denturist Association of Canada 2014 CarswellNat 4191 F C 2014 10 16 Manson J 65 A compilation can qualify for copyright protection so long as the author uses skill and judgment in the relevant sense in determining the arrangement of the work Fox on Canadian Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs 4th ed Fox at 7 16 1 If information has been arranged according to industry standards the amount of skill judgment or labour exercised is minimal and does not meet the threshold of originality required Tele Direct Publications Inc v ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1
37. to me to be a commissioned work written by the unknown UK company am persuaded that the UK company was the original author of the manual in whom the copyright would have vested in 1991 Clearly there was no assignment of the copyright by the UK company Section 2 4 Communication to the public by telecommunication Distribution of a netwok signal and its subsequent communication constitutes a single communication Each retransmission is not a separate act of infringement Leuthold v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 2014 CarswellNat 2246 F C A 2014 06 27 Pelletier J affirming 104 C P R 4th 401 F C 2002 06 14 motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada filed 2014 CarswellNat 3986 S C C 2014 09 30 38 It seems to me that the better view is that paragraph 2 4 1 c legislates that the distribution of a network signal incorporating a protected work to BDUs and the subsequent communication of that work to subscribers is but a single network wide infringement in which each participating BDU is jointly and severally liable along with the network In that way all those who benefit from the communication of the work share in the liability for compensating the rights holder subject to whatever arrangements may be in place between them ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Queb
38. www canlii org en on onsc doc 201 4 201 40nsc2136 20140nsc2136 pdf Ont Sup Ct Damages 2014 04 09 Canadian Artists Representation Le Front des artistes canadiens CARFAC v National Gallery of Canada NGC 2012 CarswellNat 4332 C A P P R T 2012 02 16 reversed 2013 CarswellNat 507 F C A CIPS 2015 Lawyer and trade mark agent Laurent Carri re is a partner with ROBIC LLP a multidisciplinary firm of lawyers patent and trade mark agents Published as part of a release to the Canadian Copyright Act Annotated Carswell Publication 445 ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 2013 03 04 reversed 2014 CarswellNat 1904 2014 SCC 42 2014 S C J 101 121 C P R 4th 1 240 A C W S 3d 963 371 D L R 4th 383 458 N R 233 68 Admin L R 5th 1 J E 2014 1093 EYB 2014 238368 2014EXP 1935 http www canlii org en ca scc doc 201 4 201 4scc42 2014scc42 html S C C 2014 05 14 7 Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters v Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors Composers and Publishers in Canada SODRAC Inc 2014 CarswellNat 4094 2014 FCA 235 246 A C W S 3d 439 378 D L R 4th 742 http www canlii org en ca fca doc 201 4
39. 4 html Ont Sup Ct 2014 07 29 19 Filosofia ditions inc v Entreprises Foxmind Canada lt e 2013 CarswellQue 5393 Que Sup Ct 2013 06 07 affirmed 2014 Carswell Que 1554 242 A C W S 3d 308 ETB 2014 233958 2014 QCCA 399 http canlii ca fr qc qcca doc 201 4 201 4qcca399 201 4qcca399 html Que C A 2014 02 28 20 Flansberry Kapture Design v 6548890 Canada inc Turbo Marketing 2014 QCCQ 10963 2014 CarswellQue 11833 2014 J Q 12818 http www canlii org fr qc qccq doc 2014 2014qccq10963 2014qccq1096 3 html Que Ct 2014 06 01 21 Forest Stewardship Council v G H Imported Merchandise amp Sales Ltd 2014 CarswellNat 2420 2014 TMOB 100 http www canlii org en ca tmob doc 20 14 201 4tmob1 00 201 4tmob100 ht ml Opp Bd 2014 05 13 22 General Motors LLC v Wang 123 C P R 4th 139 2014 CarswellNat 3204 2014 TMOB 118 http www canlii org en ca tmob doc 20 14 201 4canlii49744 201 4canlii497 44 html Opp Bd 2014 06 11 23 Geophysical Service Incorporated v Nwest Energy Corp 2014 CarswellAlta 546 2014 ABQB 205 240 A C W S 3d 53 52 C P C 7th 286 2014 A J 373 2014 A W L D 2806 http www canlii org en ab abqb doc 2014 2014abqb205 2014abqb205 ht ml Alta Q B 2014 04 07 24 Geophysical Service Incorporated v Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petrolium Board 2014 CarswellNat 2186 2014 F C J 616 242 ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc
40. 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC American Business Information Inc 1997 1997 CanLil 6378 FCA 154 DLR 4th 328 FCA Section 2 Definition of computer program A web site could attract copyright protection Tremblay v Plourde 2014 J Q 419 Que Sup Ct 2014 01 15 Dallaire J 266 Au paragraphe 54 la demanderesse r clame 20 000 Il est en preuve que le d fendeur pour construire son site a pig en bonne partie ses textes partir de la page web propri t de la demanderesse Ce n est pas ni 267 Cette page web couverte en vertu de la Loi sur le droit d auteur est la propri t de la demanderesse 268 En effet la Loi sur le droit d auteur pr voit son article 2 que le programme d ordinateur est une ceuvre litt raire Fn 12 Loi sur le droit d auteur LRC 1985 c C 42 Section 2 Definition of computer program Originality is not a matter of quantity Planification Organisation Publications Systemes POPS Lt e v 9054 8181 Qu bec Inc 124 C P R 4th 161 FCA 2014 07 25 Gauthier J varying 111 C P R 4th 1 FC 2013 04 25 79 note that the originality of a work is not measured by the number of lines ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel
41. 6 ROBIC sources do not find that Figure 5 5 constitutes a reproduction or adaptation such as to constitute an infringement of GSI s copyright Section 2 Definition of infringing copy Infringement of a copyright work is a valid ground of opposition to the registration of a trade mark but copy will have to be proved Forest Stewardship Council v G H Imported Merchandise amp Sales Ltd 2014 CarswellNat 2420 Opp Bd 2014 05 13 C R Folz ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 25 Section 30 i of the Act requires that an applicant declare itself satisfied that it is entitled to use the applied for mark Jurisprudence suggests that non compliance with section 30 i can be found where there is a prima facie case of non compliance with a federal statute such as the Copyright Act RSC 1985 c C 42 Food and Drugs Act RSC 1985 c F 27 or Canada Post Corporation Act RSC 1985 c C 10 and see nteractiv Design Pty Ltd v Grafton Fraser Inc 1998 87 CPR 3d 537 TMOB at 542 543 26 In this case the Opponent pleads that the application does not comply with section 30 i because the Applicant has violated the Copyright Act In order to meet its evidential burden under this ground the Opponent must establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement see E Remy Martin amp Co SA v Magnet Trading Corp HK 1988 23 CPR 3d 242 TMOB 27 In order to establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement
42. 7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 info robic com Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006
43. 8 Non interactive and semi interactive webcasts 2009 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1577 Cop Bd 2014 05 16 ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 98 To be fair and equitable a tariff should neither overcompensate nor under compensate rights owners If set correctly neither a per play rate nor a percentage of revenue rate will tend to do so to the extent that each captures a different measure of usage On the other hand a tariff set at the greater of those two rates is hedged in favour of the collective It may prevent undercompensation if a service has low revenues it does not prevent overcompensation in the case of a high revenue service that uses few sound recordings 99 A greater of formulation also burdens users with an unfair share of risks Re Sound benefits if there are high revenues and a large number of plays if there are high revenues and a small number of plays and if there arelow revenues and a large number of plays Only if there are low revenues and a small number of plays does the user benefit By contrast either a per play or a percentage of revenue tariff with or without a minimum fee allocates risk between Re Sound and the users more evenly 101 It is important not to confuse a greater of formulation with a minimum fee or a recoupable advance Under these scenarios the user pays the greater of a fixed amount and the amount a formula yields Here Re Sound is proposing that the user pay the largest MONTRE
44. 8 En d autres termes ce ne sont pas tant les ventes r alis es l tranger par les diverses soci t s commerciales qui importent mais plut t leurs cons quences au Qu bec sur la situation conomique de la mise en cause en raison de la structure corporative mise en place par M Capon 9 Bref ce sont ces impacts qui permettent ici de conclure un lien de rattachement suffisant impacts qui vont bien au del de la simple comptabilisation du pr judice mon taire au Qu bec Section 34 Copyright civil remedies Conditions for the issuance of an interim injunction clear prima facie right must be established irreperable harm must be shown and the balance of inconvenience must favour the plaintiff Governing Council of the University of Toronto v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency 2014 CarswellOnt 1940 Ont Sup Ct 2014 02 04 Maranger J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 4 have applied the test to the facts of this case and would dismiss U of T s motion for an interim injunction for the following reasons e The interim injunction will finally dispose of the issue in dispute The motion seeks a mandatory order and the order sought involves the interpretation of contractual terms As a consequence the standard applicable here is that of a strong prima facie case A strong prima facie case has been described as clearly right and almost certain to be successful at trial Barton Reid Canada
45. 8 University of Toronto v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency 2014 CarswellOnt 1940 2014 ONSC 646 237 A C W S 3d 748 2014 O J 785 http canlii ca en on onsc doc 201 4 201 40nsc646 20140nsc646 html ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC Ont Sup Ct 2014 02 04 69 Vanasse v ditions du Grand Duc une division de Groupe ducalivres inc 2014 CarswellQue 8497 2014 QCCQ 7020 J E 2014 1660 EYB 2014 241110 http www canlii org fr qc qccq doc 201 4 201 4qccq7020 201 4qccq7020 h tml Que Sup Ct 2014 07 2 70 Van Helden v R 2014 CarswellNat 1977 2014 TCC 196 2014 DTC 1156 242 ACWS 3d 742 https www canlii org en ca tcc doc 2007 2007tcc632 2007tcc632 html TCC 2014 06 13 71 Victoria s Secret Stores Brand Management Inc v Thomas Pink Limited 2014 CarswellNat 84 2014 FC 76 117 C P R 4th 83 237 A C W S 3d 201 http www canlii org en ca fct doc 201 4 201 4fc76 2014fc76 html F C 2014 01 22 72 Voltage Pictures v Doe 119 C P R 4th 232 2014 CarswellNat 1599 2014 FC 161 240 A C W S 3d 964 2014 F C J 492 http www canlii org en ca fct doc 20 14 201 4fc161 2014fc161 html F C 2014 02 20 73 Waldman v Thomson Re
46. 90 Canada inc Turbo Marketing 2014 CarswellQue 11833 Que Ct 2014 06 01 Lapointe J ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 71 Or il arrive que celui qui confectionne un certain travail en l occurrence une ceuvre artistique n en soit pas pour autant l auteur au sens de l article 3 de la Loi qui dresse l tat des droits d auteur et des droits moraux sur les oeuvres Pour ne prendre qu un seul exemple le st nographe qui note le mot mot des propos tenus par une autre personne n aurait pas la titularit du droit d auteur sur le texte lequel reviendrait la personne ayant dict le texte Voir cet gard l analyse de Me St phane Gilker Principes g n raux du droit d auteur conf rence donn e au Congr s annuel du Barreau du Qu bec 2009 paragr 3 4 1 73 Et l ensemble de la preuve permet de conclure qu en aucun temps la demanderesse reconventionnelle ou ses repr sentants n ont t l origine des oeuvres un point tel et avec une pr cision telle que le r le du graphiste tait r duit concr tiser ses suggestions ou ses descriptions sous forme mat rielle dans un r le ou des gestes purement m caniques C est tout le contraire Section 2
47. 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 49 31 James a toujours cru en payant les factures et vu le contenu de celles ci qu il s agissait du site Web de son entreprise et a l occasion il indiquait Lasant certains commentaires ou formulait des demandes pour retirer une publicit qui pouvait tre n gative la demanderesse 32 En somme la demanderesse payait les factures soumises par Lasant et n avait aucune raison de croire que le site Web n tait pas sa propri t Le contenu des factures mises par Lasant corrobore la version des faits donn e par James 33 Lasant a expliqu au Tribunal que le site Web tait sa propri t parce que le site tait sa conception et qu il en tait propri taire notamment en raison des protections offertes par la Loi sur le droit d auteur Pourtant le 20 mai 2004 Lasant a transmis James une facture r f rant sp cifiquement la conception du site Web 41 La solution du litige r side dans la relation contractuelle des parties la fin 2003 et au d but 2004 et non dans l interpr tation de la Loi sur le droit d auteur A cette poque les t moignages de James Lasant et du t moin Miron confirment que la volont de James tait de cr er un site Web pour son entreprise et en aucun temps les faits et gestes de James laissent croire qu i
48. AL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC il amount of royalties yielded by two different formulas The purpose of a minimum fee is to ensure that users cannot use protected sound recordings for free The purpose of Re Sound s proposed formula is to maximize royalties as a function of a user s business model and success Section 68 Board to consider proposed tariffs and objections Tariffs must be realistic Re Sound No Tariff 8 Non interactive and semi interactive webcasts 2009 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1577 Cop Bd 2014 05 16 114 The key advantage of per play rates is that they are strictly correlated with usage They are a type of transactional price Transactional prices are used in other Internet tariffs the Board has certified 115 In this instance we opt for a per play tariff because it is better correlated with usage because it monetizes music given for free because usage is more readily and reliably measurable because it is technologically possible and because it is a transactional price Section 68 Board to consider proposed tariffs and objections In any hearing to establish a Tariff evidence is required to support concerns and proposals Public Performance of Sound Recordings Re Re S
49. Act restrict the parties contractual freedom in this regard In every case it is for the trial judge to determine the terms that are implicit in the contract in light of all of the relevant contextual elements in civil law Section 13 Ownership of copyright When a work is created during the employment the employer is the owner of the copyright therein Planification Organisation Publications Syst mes POPS Lt e v 9054 8181 Qu bec Inc 124 C P R 4th 161 F C A 2014 07 25 Gauthier J varying 111 C P R 4th 1 F C 2013 04 25 74 From this perspective and in view of the judge s factual finding that Elizabeth Posada was working for IDP when these lines of code were written and that her job included developing Epsilon and Comex the rule set out at subsection 13 3 of the Act applied and unless otherwise stipulated IDP the employer was the first owner of the copyright 84 Furthermore it matters little whether Elizabeth Posada is the sole author or one of several authors of Epsilon a k a Comex ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 45 Indeed according to Elizabeth Posada s testimony the 20 lines of code that were written when she was employed by
50. C 84 Minister look to other legal proceedings to recover equitable remuneration from users of sound recordings of musical works If this is correct subsection 67 1 4 is of little assistance in determining for whom a collective society may collect 99 In light of the differences in the English and French versions of the statutory text and bearing in mind that reasonableness is the standard of review applicable to the Board s interpretation of these provisions of the Act am not persuaded that the Board committed an error of law in relying on subsection 67 1 4 to support its decision especially since other provisions of the Act provide a reasonable basis for the Board s decision Section 67 1 Filing of proposed tariffs Tariff must be economically realistic He Sound No Tariff 8 Non interactive and semi interactive webcasts 2009 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1577 Cop Bd 2014 05 16 114 The key advantage of per play rates is that they are strictly correlated with usage They are a type of transactional price Transactional prices are used in other Internet tariffs the Board has certified including in subsections 5 3 and 4 of the CSI Online Music Services Tariff 2008 2010 There are thus precedents for the use of transactional pricing in a related market 115 In this instance we opt for a per play tariff because it is better correlated with usage because it monetizes music given for free because usage is m
51. C P R 4th 287 F C A 2014 02 24 Evans J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 96 In my view the first of the Board s reasons supports its interpretation The relevance of subsection 67 1 4 in this context is however less clear The French version of the statutory text does not contain words equivalent to with respect to the work performer s performance or sound recording in question which according to the Board support the view that Re Sound does not necessarily collect royalties on behalf of all eligible recordings used for the purpose identified in the tariff 97 The French version of subsection 67 1 4 suggests a situation where a collective society has proposed no tariff at all Le non d p t du projet emp che sauf autorisation crite du ministre l exercise de quelque recours que ce soit pour recouvrement des redevances vis es l article 19 98 On this basis the function of subsection 67 1 4 is to provide an incentive for collective societies to file a proposed tariff in accordance with the three preceding subsections That is a collective society that fails in its duty to file a tariff cannot without the written consent of the MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBI
52. C W S 3d 110 2014 BCSC 1559 2014 B C J 2126 http www canlii org en bc bcsc doc 2014 2014bcsc1559 201 4bcsc1559 html B C S C 2014 08 18 39 Messier v Le quotidien La Presse 2014 CanLil 23871 http www canlii org fr qc qccpq doc 2014 2014canlii23871 2014canlii238 71 html Que Conseil de presse 2014 03 21 40 Mitchell Repair Information Company v Wayne Long 2014 CarswellNat 2195 242 A C W S 3d 180 2014 FC 562 2014 F C J 619 http www canlii org en ca fct doc 20 1 4 201 4fc562 2014fc562 html F C 2014 06 11 41 National Film Board for the synchronization and the communication to the public by telecommunication of a musical work Non exclusive licence issued to File 2013 UO TI 14 2014 CarswellNat 1775 http www cb cda gc ca unlocatable introuvables licences 278 e pdf Cop Bd 2014 05 12 42 National Film Board of Canada Toronto Ontario for the incorporation ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC the public performance the reproduction and the communication to the public by telecommunication of two images Non exclusive licence issued to Files 2013 UO TI 20 2014 CarswellNat 3944 http www cb cda gc ca unlocatable introuvables li
53. NTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 75 sentence for him sight must not be lost of the facts of the offences before the Court Mr Strowbridge is not being sentenced for his record 45 When compared to the cases referred to above it is my view that the six month custodial sentence for Mr Strowbridge s trademark and copyright offences is disproportionality long for the gravity of the offences he committed and his level of moral blameworthiness Accordingly it is demonstrably unfit 48 Subsection 734 2 makes clear that in fining an offender a judge is required to be satisfied that the offender has the ability to pay the fine before imposing it In failing to apply the provisions of subsection 734 2 by assessing Mr Strowbridge s ability to pay the 5 000 fine and to be satisfied that Mr Strowbridge could do so the judge committed an error in principle Accordingly the 5 000 fine he imposed on Mr Strowbridge must be quashed 50 The fundamental sentencing principle is proportionality While a custodial sentence for Mr Strowbridge s offences given their nature and magnitude could be disproportionate to their gravity and the level of his moral blameworthiness
54. Only the Board s misunderstanding of the core issue i e the tariff structure proposed by one of the parties can explain its error This type of error however palpable it may be is not one that permits an exception to be made to the functus officio rule 74 also do not believe that the greater flexibility that administrative tribunals should be given in applying the functus officio rule could lead to a different outcome Chandler at 861 and 862 Chandler c Alberta Association of Architects 1989 2 R C S 848 In fact this greater flexibility even though it is significant does not allow administrative tribunals to expand the recognized exceptions to the functus officio rule Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board Re 1997 CanLil 11673 ON IPC at page 5 Herzig v Canada 2002 FCA 36 CanLll at para 16 which is precisely what would have to be done in order to allow the Board to correct its palpable error Section 67 Public access to repertoire There is a duty upon collective to provide information about its repertoire Re Sound v Fitness Industry Council of Canada 120 C P R 4th 287 F C A 2014 02 24 Evans J 110 Third section 67 of the Act imposes a duty on a collective society when requested by a member of the public to provide information about its repertoire of performers performances and sound recordings that are in ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Flo
55. REAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 55 tous L int r t public du reportage justifiait sa diffusion Par ailleurs il n est pas de la comp tence du Conseil de se prononcer sur la Loi sur le droit d auteur 28 Le Conseil rejette le grief pour partialit Section 34 Copyright civil remedies Even if the award of costs is discretionnay any decision not to grant same shall be motivated Lachance v Productions Marie Eykel inc 2014 CarswellQue 637 Que C A 2014 01 30 the Court confirming 2012 CarswellQue 5028 Que Sup Ct 2012 03 15 18 Leur deuxi me moyen veut que la juge aurait err dans son dispositif en concluant au rejet de l action de l appelant sans frais puisqu elle a omis de pr ciser pourquoi En d pit de la r gle g n rale qui veut que la partie perdante paie les d pens de celle qui a gain de cause l article 477 C p c permet au juge du proc s d y d roger mais il doit se justifier En l esp ce le silence de la juge permet la Cour de substituer son avis au sien Fn 9 Constructions P pin et Fortin inc c R sidence des Bois Francs inc A J Q P C 1999 1273 C A Lauzon c Qu bec P G 2010 QCCA 1239 19 Bien que la juge ait omis de motiver sa conclusion su
56. Second it is not altogether clear that Netflix is the only provider that offers free trials When the Board was examining the free previews offered by iTunes it was possible to argue that iTunes was the dominant provider of permanent downloads Thus in examining ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 54 the practices of iTunes the Board was essentially examining the practices of the permanent download industry However in the case of Netflix it is not clear that they dominate the market for videos Without the argument of market dominance an analysis of Netflix s policy of free trials would necessarily be incomplete with respect to the overall video industry 62 Third and equally importantly we do not have the evidentiary base with which to make that decision While we could delay this decision for several more months during which time we would be collecting evidence from the parties on this issue the fact that Netflix declined to participate in the process for many months is sufficient reason for us to decline to do so If Netflix now wants to argue that it does not owe anything for its free trials the appropriate forum in which to do so is not the Board Section 29 2
57. Tariff 8 Non interactive and semi interactive webcasts 2009 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1577 Cop Bd 2014 05 16 113 Per play rates are used in the United States and elsewhere Fn31 For example Germany Ireland Japan the Netherlands New Zealand and the U K Exhibit Re Sound 10 Exhibit 66 thereto for webcasting this implies that the technology for measuring plays exists is affordable and is available While it may be necessary to have transitional provisions to address the difficulty of counting plays retroactively this does not present a problem on a prospective basis 114 The key advantage of per play rates is that they are strictly correlated with usage They are a type of transactional price Transactional prices are used in other Internet tariffs the Board has certified including in subsections 5 3 and 4 of the CSI Online Music Services Tariff 2008 2010 There are thus precedents for the use of transactional pricing in a related market 115 In this instance we opt for a per play tariff because it is better correlated with usage because it monetizes music given for free because usage is more readily and reliably measurable because it is technologically possible and because it is a transactional price Section 68 Board to consider proposed tariffs and objections Homologation Tariffs are prospective and of general application Public Performance of Musical Works Re Statement of Royalties to Be Collected
58. V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 52 50 On y trouve en effet une quantit ph nom nale de donn es incluant des images qui pour la plupart n indiquent pas tre prot g es par un droit d auteur quelconque 51 De l avis du Tribunal penser ainsi aurait comme effet de pouvoir bien facilement contourner les dispositions l gislatives ce sujet de telle sorte que d s le moment o une oeuvre est disponible sur Internet elle chapperait au domaine juridique de la propri t intellectuelle Section 27 Infringement generally In the world of education plagiarism is a serious matter but sanctions must be graduated Syndicat des professeur e s de l Universit du Qu bec Montr al Le v L Universit du Qu bec Montr al 2014 CanLIl 16661f 2014 04 10 Gagnon arbitrator 113 Le plagiat ne saurait tre tol r de la part d un enseignant L on ne saurait en effet tol rer que les titulaires de cette fonction s adonnent eux m mes des abus de cette nature ou d autres qui sont interdits aux tudiants 114 Les professeurs doivent en quelque sorte servir de mod les aux tudiants L institution o ils exercent leurs fonctions ne saurait tol rer la pratique du plagiat de leur part S il en tait ainsi les tudiants pourraient avoir le sentiment qu ils peuvent eux aussi avoir recours des abus de cette nature sans crai
59. Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC can be identified as substantially copied even if the language is altered Section 3 Copyright in works In a contest there is no implied conditions that what will be submitted will not infringe the copyright of third parties Cayouette v RNC Media inc 2014 J Q 13537 Que Ct Small Claims 2014 09 22 Lachapelle J 32 RNC Media qui est bien au fait des probl mes potentiels reli s la question des droits d auteur aurait d indiquer clairement que les participants qui soumettaient des photos provenant de l internet ou d autres sources seraient disqualifi s 34 Le Tribunal estime que RNC Media a effectivement manqu son obligation de divulguer toutes les conditions et les modalit s d obtention du prix Par cons quent conclut que madame Cayouette a droit des dommages int r ts Section 5 Conditions of subsistence of copyright Copyright only protects the expression of ideas A work must be in a fixed material form to attract copyright J v M 117 C P R 4th 409 B C S C 2014 01 23 Bunyeat J 57 The Work is a business system using the computers of DC at SCMI and is not capable of protection under the Act The Work is not a work in which copyright m
60. a LAW All BUSINESS 4 ROBIC 72 V ART i SINCE 1892 LAWYERS PATENT AND TRADEMARK AGENTS A COMPILATION OF THE CANADIAN COPYRIGHT CASES DECIDED IN 2014 First a 1 LAURENT CARRI RE ROBIC LLP LAWYERS PATENT amp TRADEMARK AGENTS general listing Ahern v 1772887 Ontario Ltd Mariage Qu bec 2014 QCCQ 973 http canlii ca fr qc qcecq doc 201 4 201 4qccq973 201 4qccq973 html Que Ct 2014 02 05 Animal Welfare International Inc v W3 International Media Ltd 2014 CarswellBC 2902 2014 BCSC 1839 2014 B C W L D 7532 2014 B C W L D 7535 2014 B C W L D 7628 246 A C W S 3d 734 2014 B C J 2442 http www canlii org en bc bcsc doc 201 4 2014bcsc1839 2014bcsc1839 html B C S C 2014 10 01 Atlantic Canada Regional Council of Carpenters Millwrights and Allied Workers v Maritime Environmental Training Institute Ltd 2014 CarswellNS 125 2014 NSSC 64 237 A C W S 3d 746 1081 A P R 1 341 N S R 2d 1 2014 N S J 75 http www canlii org en ns nssc doc 2014 2014nssc64 2014nssc64 html S C N S 2014 02 20 Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky 2014 CarswellAlta 2321 248 A C W S 3d 96 2014 ABQB 771 2014 A J 1422 http www canlii org en ab abqb doc 20 14 201 4abqb771 2014abqb771 ht ml Alta Q B 2014 12 16 Canada Attorney General v Rundle Nec Plus Ultra 2014 CarswellOnt 5126 2014 ONSC 2136 239 A C W S 3d 740 119 C P R 4th 225 2014 OJ 1866 http
61. action in the court at first instance It would be equally inconsistent if on appeal from a judicial review the appeal court were to approach a legal question decided by the Board on a deferential standard but adopt a correctness standard on an appeal from a decision of a court at first instance on the same legal question MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 46 In my view Rogers is distinguishable because the question of statutory interpretation in dispute in the present case arises from the Board s approval of a proposed royalty under subsection 68 3 of the Copyright Act Determining whether a collective society represents eligible recordings not in its repertoire when proposing a tariff under section 67 1 is not within a statutorily created shared primary jurisdiction between the administrative tribunal and the courts Rogers at para 18 47 This conclusion does not rest on a finding that there are no circumstances under which a court could be required to determine at first instance whether a collective society represented all eligible recordings used to accompany particular activities or only those that had been brought into its repertoire as a result of some form o
62. ages in accordance with these sections of the Copyright Act 35 As noted briefly above and discussed more fully below there are important cornpeting policy considerations as to whether the Norwich Order should be granted in this kind of situation Such an order is a discretionary and extraordinary order For the reasons discussed below given that Voltage bas demonstrated a bona fide case of copyright infringement a Norwich Order will be granted This Order will be granted with qualifications intended to protect the privacy rights of individuals and ensure that the judicial process is not being used to support a business model intended to coerce innocent individuals to make payments to avoid being sued 45 The principles to be taken from BMG BMG Canada Inc v Doe 2005 FCA 193 are as follows a plaintiff must have a bona fide case a non party in this case TekSawy must have information on an issue in the proceeding an order of the Court is the only reasonablc means of obtaining the information e that faimess requires the information be provided prior to trial and any order made will not cause undue delay inconvenience or expense to the thirdparty or others 57 The enforcement of Voltage s rights as a copyright holder outweighs the privacy interests of the affected internet users However that is not the end of the malter As part of making any Norwich Order the Court must ensure that privacy rights are invaded
63. al Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 2 Section 66 51 Interim decisions Interim decisions are to avoid a legal vacuo Public Performance of Sound Recordings Re Sound Tariff 6 B Use of Recorded Music to Accompany Physical Activities 2008 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1189 Cop Bd 2014 04 17 5 As a result of the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal Tariff 6 B is a nullity as it applies to allfitness activities except skating Since this is an inaugural tariff there is no earlier tariff which could continue to apply on an interim basis pursuant to paragraph 68 2 3 b of the Act Re Sound cannot collect royalties for fitness activities other than skating until the Board has complied with the order of the Federal Court of Appeal Re Sound may even be required to refund royalties collected to date pursuant to the tariff The Board recognized Re Sound s entitlement to collect some royalties in its July 6 2012 decision 7 The March 12 2014 application by Re Sound for an interim decision is granted Those parts of Re Sound Tariff No 6 B Use of Recorded Music to Accompany Physical Activities that were set aside on February 24 2014 in Re Sound v Fitness Industry Council of Canada et al 2014 FCA 48 are reinstated on an interim basis effective as of January 1 2008 and until the Board issues a further interim decisio
64. anada inc 2014 CarswellQue 6977 EYB 2014 239822 243 A C W S 3d 60 J E 2014 1583 2014 J Q 7055 2014 QCCS 3343 http www canlii org fr qc qccs doc 201 4 201 4qccs3343 201 4qccs3343 ht ml Que Sup Ct 2014 07 15 30 Keatley Surveying Ltd v Teranet Inc 107 CPR 4th 237 Ont Sup Ct 2012 12 14 reversed 2014 ONSC 1677 2014 CarswellOnt 3792 119 O R 3d 497 51 C P C 7th 54 239 A C W S 3d 862 371 D L R 4th 534 319 O A C 219 371 D L R 4th 534 51 C P C 7th 54 2014 O J 140 http www canlii org en on onscdc doc 2014 2014onsc1677 2014onsc16 77 html Ont Sup Ct Div Ct 2014 03 26 Sachs J add reasons 2014 CarswellOnt 9193 2014 O J 3250 2014 ONSC 3690 Ont Sup Ct Div Ct 2014 06 26 31 Kennedy v Ruminski 2014 CarswellNat 1842 2014 FC 526 240 A C W S 3d 965 240 A C W S 3d 965 2014 F C J 557 2014 FC 526 _ http www canlii org en ca fct doc 201 4 201 4fc526 201 4fc526 html F C 2014 05 30 32 Labrecque O Sauna v Trudel Centre Bellaza s e n c 2014 QCCQ 2595 http www canlii org fr qc qccq doc 201 4 201 4qccq2595 201 4qccq2595 h ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC tml Que Ct Small Claims
65. aracterization of them as ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC i employment income is sufficient in this case to establish that he was an employee 25 As a result of this finding s 13 3 of the Act is relevant It vests copyright in the works created during the course of the Respondent s employment with the Applicant unless there is an agreement to the contrary 26 The Memorandum constitutes such an agreement It governs the respective ownership interests of the Applicant and Respondent in the works created by the Respondent during the course of the employment relationship Section 13 Ownership of copyright Authorization must be from the copyright owner or his legal representative Pokora v 9064 0723 Qu bec inc 2014 QCCQ 5697 Que Ct Small Claims 2014 05 14 Chicoine J 5 CONSID RANT que dame Berry Fortin alors amie du demandeur n avait aucune autorit ni mandat pour lier l une ou l autre des soci t s d fenderesses Section 13 Ownership of copyright The Status of the Artist Act and the Copyright Act are not mutually exclusive or contradictory Establishing a minimum fee for the use of existing works does not affect any of the rights co
66. arying 111 C P R 4th 1 F C 2013 04 25 ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 39 agree with the appellants when they indicate in their notice of appeal that the contractual relationships between the parties must be examined in light of the civil law even if certain aspects are also regulated by the Copyright Act R S C 1985 c C 42 the Act It should be noted however that the appellants and the respondents asked the judge to take into account various decisions issued in common law jurisdictions and that they continue to rely on those decisions in this proceeding This explains the reference to such authorities in the judge s decision Section 13 Ownership of copyright A non exclusive licence may not be revoked at will when the licensee provided consideration Planification Organisation Publications Syst mes POPS Lt e v 9054 8181 Qu bec Inc 124 C P R 4th 161 F C A 2014 07 25 Gauthier J varying 111 C P R 4th 1 F C 2013 04 25 45 In my opinion there is no generally applicable rule of law that would preclude a non exclusive user licence from being non revocable when the licensee has provided consideration Neither the law nor the
67. ased on findings of facts will seldom be successfull ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC Pinto v Bronfman Jewish Education Center 2014 CarswellQue 2135 Que C A 2014 03 12 affirming 2011 QCCS 3458 Que Sup Ct 2011 07 13 1 The judge of first instance concluded that Appellant s client was Bronfman Jewish Education Centre and not Federation CJA nor Tal Am Inc She concluded that Respondents Shlomo and Tova Shimon did not take advantage of the Appellant They did not commit themselves to negotiate an agreement with him regarding the payment of royalties The letters dated June 13 and 14 2006 were not drafted in order to abusively obtain a waiver from him regarding the payment of royalties but rather to put an end to the interminable discussions they were having regarding this question Section 13 Ownership of copyright The provisions dealing with ordered engravings photograph or portrait are applicable to works created before the repeal of subsection 13 2 Labrecque O Sauna v Trudel Centre Bellaza s e n c 2014 QCCQ 2595 Que Ct Small Claims 2014 03 28 Gervais J 42 Comme le pr voit express ment le 2 paragraphe de l article
68. at individuel qui devra respecter certains param tres Section 13 Ownership of copyright When a work is not created in the course of employment the employee remains the first owner of the copyright Mejia v LaSalle College International Vancouver Inc 2014 CarswellBC 2454 B C S C 2014 08 18 Cohen J 207 The plaintiff was hired by LaSalle as an instructor and not as a photographer While an instructor proceeding generally about his master s affairs could possibly be engaging in a wide variety of activities whether paid or unpaid do not view the taking of photographs to be an example of such an activity In the circumstances of this case the taking of photographs was not an activity that was generally considered to be within the duties of the plaintiff instructor and there was no contractual agreement that he do so Though the photograph is connected with the employer LaSalle by virtue of its subject and the location in which it was taken do not view it as being connected with the plaintiff s employment 208 find therefore that the photograph was not made in the course of the plaintiffs employment with LaSalle and as such s 13 3 of the Copyright Act does not apply find pursuant to s 13 1 of the Copyright Act that the plaintiff is the first owner of the copyright of the photograph in question Section 13 Ownership of copyright ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com MONTREAL QUEBEC
69. ational Media Ltd 2014 CarswellBC 2902 B C S C 2014 10 01 Ross J 479 AWI submits that the damages it claims pursuant to the claim for lost profit arising from the breach of contract are also partially recoverable pursuant to the claim for breach of copyright AWI concedes however that it is not entitled to double recovery AWI submits that to a degree some element of damages does stand separate and apart from lost sales and certain remedies may be imposed under the CA despite a major recovery under the head of breach of contract 480 In the alternative AWI submits that it can elect to claim statutory damages in lieu of ordinary damages pursuant to s 38 1 of the C 486 am satisfied that the award with respect to loss of profit made pursuant to the breach of contract compensates AWI for the profits lost due to breach of copyright have concluded that given the scope of the copying and the commercial motivation of W3 it is appropriate to make an award of statutory damages which fix at 20 000 in total Section 41 23 Protection of separate rights Even in a class action the representative must have a copyright interest Keatley Surveying Ltd v Teranet Inc 2014 CarswellOnt 3792 Ont Sup Ct Div Ct 2014 03 26 Sachs J add reasons 2014 CarswellOnt 9193 Ont Sup Ct Div Ct 2014 06 26 reversing 107 CPR 4 237 Ont Sup Ct 2012 12 14 47 As the motion judge correctly found to qualify as a
70. ations of infringement against the recipient and made any funding of liability Any demand letter should stipulate that the person receiving the letter may not be the person who was responsible for the infringing acts A copy of the Court order or the entire decision should be included with any letter sent to an alleged infringer and The Court should ensure that the remedy granted is proportional Section 34 Copyright civil remedies Damages for copyright infringement are suffered at the place where the head office is located It is the effect of the infringing acts that shall be considered not how the infringement was orchestred ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 58 Filosofia Editions inc v Entreprises Foxmind Canada lt e 2014 CarswellQue 1554 Que C A 2014 02 28 affirming 2013 CarswellQue 5393 Que Sup Ct 2013 06 07 7 Il faut comprendre que ce ne sont pas les activit s propres aux entreprises appelantes sur les territoires trangers qui sont en soi un facteur de rattachement mais bien leur interaction avec celles de la mise en cause et l impact que cela pourrait avoir sur les activit s de cette derni re en territoire qu b cois
71. ay subsist within the meaning of the Act NG It flows from the fact that copyright only protects the expression of ideas that a work must also be in a fixed material form to attract copyright protection see s 2 definitions of dramatic work and computer program and more generally Goldner v Canadian Broadcasting Corp 1972 7 C P R 2d 158 F C T D at p 162 Grignon v Roussel 1991 CanLll 6894 FC 1991 38 C P R 3d 4 F C T D atp 7 ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC i 58 Section 5 of the Act describes the types of works in which copyright may subsist as being in every original literary dramatic musical and artistic work Section 2 of the Act defines literary work to include a computer program which is further defined as a set of instructions or statements express fixed embodied or stored in any manner that is to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a specific result The definition of artistic work includes architectural works which are themselves defined as any building or structure or any model of a building or structure 59 The fact that the Act does not protect ideas means that there
72. bjection are not official objectors However tariffs are prospective and of general application in that the Board imposes obligations on absent users Some account must therefore be taken of the interests of those who are not before us and who will be affected by our decision Section 77 Circumstances in which licence may be issued by Board Licences can be retroactive Licences will not be for longer term than the term of copyright National Film Board for the synchronization and the communication to the public by telecommunication of a musical work Non exclusive licence issued to 2014 CarswellNat 1775 Cop Bd 2014 05 12 1 The licence authorizes the Synchronization and the communication to the public by telecommunication of a musical work entitled L Interplan taire by Les Talismans beginning on April 1 2013 The issuance of the licence does not release the applicant ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 94 from the obligation to obtain permission for any other use not covered by this licence 2 The licence expires when the work is no longer protected by copyright 3 The licence is non exclusive and valid only in Canada For other countries it is th
73. c Q 56 Or les DVDs soit les thirteen copyrighted adult DVDs owned by JJV or Gasper and featuring Gasper s performances faisant l objet du Litige d origine lequel le Tribunal le rappelle est reli une violation all gu e des droits d auteur des Requ rants selon le droit am ricain ont t vendus dans l tat de la Californie et ce fait dommageable y a caus un pr judice 57 Il s agit d une application de l article 3168 3 C c Q et aussi une illustration de l existence d un lien important au sens de l article 3164 MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 65 C c Q entre le Litige d origine et la Cour de district qui a rendu le Jugement Otero 2 Section 34 Copyright civil remedies A plaintiff may be liable for the costs if he withdraw his motion for interlocutory injunction Faas v Coloroso 2014 CarswellOnt 10315 Ont Sup Ct 2014 07 29 Morgan J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 22 The cases where costs are awarded against a moving party for a deemed abandonment of a motion tend to be those where there was either an impropriety or the motion was ill advised in the first place On the other hand costs are generally not awarded against an abandoning party where
74. cences 281 e pdf Cop Bd 2014 09 22 43 Nicholas for the reproduction of a painting Non exclusive licence issued to Jane File 2014 UO TI 02 2014 CarswellNat 1778 http www cb cda gc ca unlocatable introuvables licences 279 e pdf Cop Bd 2014 05 22 44 NYM Ministries for the public performance the reproduction and the synchronization of two musical works Non exclusive licence issued to Files 2013 UO TI 22 and 2014 UO TI 01 2014 CarswellNat 2569 http www cb cda gc ca unlocatable introuvables licences 280 e pdf Cop Bd 2014 06 23 45 Pinto v Bronfman Jewish Education Center 2011 QCCS 3458 http canlii ca fr qc qccs doc 201 1 201 1qccs3458 201 1qccs3458 html Que Sup Ct 2011 07 13 affirmed 2014 CarswellQue 2135 2014 QCCA 508 EYB 2014 234651 http www canlii org en qc qcca doc 2013 2013qcca 1555 2013qcca1555 html Que C A 2014 03 12 46 Planification Organisation Publications Systemes POPS Ltee v 9054 8181 Quebec Inc 111 C P R 4th 1 F C 2013 04 25 varied 124 C P R 4th 161 2014 CarswellNat 2798 243 A C W S 3d 432 461 N R 106 2014 FCA 185 2014 F C J 773 http www canlii org en ca fca doc 2014 2014fca185 2014fca185 html F C A 2014 07 25 47 Point du jour aviation lt e v Simard 2014 QCCQ 13560 http www canlii org fr qc qccq doc 2014 2014qccq13560 2014qccq1356 O html Que Ct 2014 12 15 48 Pokora v 9064 0728 Quebec inc 2014 QCCQ 5697 http www canli
75. contiennent les manuels des deux parties vient d une source commune soit dans le pr sent cas l op ration des chlorateurs au sel pour piscine ce qui fait que les id es tre exprim es dans les manuels sont communes Fn20 Caron c Association des pompiers de Montr al inc 1992 CarswellNat 691 42 C P R 3d 292 Cour f d rale du Canada 75 De plus Carvin plaide que les textes auxquels fait r f rence Hayward comme tant copi s directement ou modifi s l g rement ne constituent pas une partie importante des manuels MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 32 76 A cet gard l expression partie importante ne signifie pas uniquement une perspective quantitative mais aussi et de facon plus importante qualitative Fn21 1429539 Ontario Limited c Caf Mirage Inc 2011 FC 1290 par 122 Hayward ne plaide pas l aspect qualitatif de ses manuels Elle se fie principalement sur la perspective quantitative 77 Consid rant ce qui pr c de ce stade des proc dures la preuve est telle que le plus que l on puisse dire est que le droit de Hayward est douteux quant la contrefa on d un droit d auteur et le Tribunal en conclut ainsi Section 3 Copyright in works Copyright is
76. cos the Court in BCAA BCAA v Office and Professional Employees Int Union 2001 BCSC 156 B C S C 2001 01 26 held at para 173 that it must be established that 1 there is an original work 2 there has been a copying and 3 a substantial portion of the work has been reproduced Section 2 Definition of infringing Incomplete deletions of references to the copyright owner in the copy will help to ascertain infringement Animal Welfare International Inc v W3 International Media Ltd 2014 CarswellBC 2902 B C S C 2014 10 01 Ross J ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 22 467 With respect to the second element copying the Plaintiff AWI submits that the fact that CanaCreek was created by significantly copying CVT cannot be disputed Both Myfanwy and Marcellus Wong testified that the Defendant W3 technicians copied the CVT website for use as a template for CanaCreek W3 then scrubbed the copied CVT website for references to AWI and CVT and inserted CanaCreek in place of CVT However the process was incomplete and some references to CVT remained on the website Section 2 Definition of infringing Acknowledging the source may not be suffici
77. ction brought by freelance writers for compensation for the publication of their works on electronic databases Under the settlement Thomson agreed to pay the class members who undoubtedly had the copyright in their literary works 11 million which after certain deductions including legal fees was to be distributed to those class members that provided licences As an alternative to granting the licences and receiving payments under the distributions process class members could elect to have their works removed from commercially available electronic databases 97 Unlike Robertson in the case at bar the Class Members did not receive compensation for their licences but only the satisfaction of MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 37 knowing that Thomson paid 350 000 to benefit a worthy project and 850 000 to Class Counsel 98 But more to the point unlike Robertson the case at bar was always about the principle and not about the money In Robertson the class members livelinood was to be paid for their literary works and they sued to earn revenue In the case at bar the Class Members make their living as lawyers not as authors and they sued not for income but for the principle that Thomson should not tak
78. d ed Markham LexisNexis Canada 2005 at pages 422 and 423 Section 57 Registration of assignment or licence ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC ka The Federal Court may rectify a copyright registration when the information is erroneous or incomplete Planification Organisation Publications Systemes POPS Lt e v 9054 8181 Qu bec Inc 124 C P R 4th 161 F C A 2014 07 25 Gauthier J varying 111 C P R 4th 1 F C 2013 04 25 85 Due to the erroneous or incomplete information contained in the Epsilon certificate it was open to the judge to strike it even if Epsilon is considered to be a compilation Section 57 Registration of assignment or licence To ask for the rectification of a copyright registration the plaintiff must be an interested person Victoria s Secret Stores Brand Management Inc v Thomas Pink Limited 117 C P R 4th 83 2014 01 22 Hughes J 21 Having regard to the provisions of the definition of person interested in section 2 of the Trade Marks Act and section 53 2 and section 57 of that Act conclude a person interested must demonstrate that they are affected or reasonably apprehend that they will be affected b
79. ded Music to Accompany Physical Activities 2008 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1189 2014 C B D 1 http www cb cda gc ca decisions 2014 ReSound6 B 59 pdf Cop Bd 2014 04 17 54 Public Performance of Musical Works Re Statement of Royalties to Be Collected by SOCAN for the Public Performance or the Communication to the Public by Telecommunication in Canada of Musical or Dramatico Musical Works Tariff 4 Concerts 2009 2014 CarswellNat 2802 2014 C B D 4 http www cb cda gc ca decisions 2014 supplement 20140725 pdf Cop Bd 2014 07 25 55 R v Strowbridge 2014 CarswellNfld 30 2014 NLCA 4 112 W C B 2d 6 2014 N J 29 112 W C B 2d 6 1078 A P R 203 346 Nfld amp P E I R 203 http canlii ca en nl nlca doc 2014 2014nlca4 2014nlca4 html N L C A 2014 02 04 56 He Sound v Fitness Industry Council of Canada 120 C P R 4th 287 2014 CarswellNat 395 2014 FCA 48 238 A C W S 3d 445 455 N R 87 2014 F C J 215 238 A C W S 3d 445 72 Admin L R bth 1 2014 FCA 48 http canlii ca en ca fca doc 201 4 201 4fca48 201 4fca48 html F C A 2014 02 24 57 Re Sound No Tariff 8 Non interactive and semi interactive webcasts 2009 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1577 2014 C B D 2 http www cb cda gc ca decisions 2014 ReSound8 60 motif pdf Cop Bd 2014 05 16 58 Roulottes Prolite inc v Lasant 2014 CarswellQue 10221 2014 QCCS 4727 J E 2014 1943 EYB 2014 242890 http www canlii org f
80. e what most lawyers would be prepared to give away for free if only politely asked 99 Unlike Robertson where the payment to the class members in exchange for a licence was consistent with the purposes of the class action in the case at bar the exchange of a licence was inconsistent with the purposes of the class action which was never about the money but about the principle that Thomson should not infringe the Class Members copyrights in court documents Under this Settlement Thomson has achieved something that it could not have achieved even by a successful counterclaim namely copyright licences and releases of copyright infringement claims by Class Members whose intention was to protect not to be paid for their copyright Section 13 Ownership of copyright For a copyright assigment to have effect It must be clear as to the transfer of rights Soci t de d veloppement des entreprises culturelles SODEC v Soci t Radio Canada SRC 2014 CarswellQue 2051 Que Sup Ct 2014 03 12 Petras J 83 En France seul le titulaire des droits d auteur qui dispose un droit r el peut agir en contrefacon M me un licenci exclusif n a pas les qualit s pour agir en contrefagon car il n est pas titulaire des droits d auteur 125 Pour pr tendre au transfert d un droit de propri t r el il faut des termes clairs dans une convention Section 13 Ownership of copright Even in copyright matters an appeal b
81. e law of that country that applies Section 77 Circumstances in which licence may be issued by Board The licence may be for paper or electronic reproduction or both Nicholas for the reproduction of a painting Non exclusive licence issued to Jane 2014 CarswellNat 1778 Cop Bd 2014 05 22 1 The licence authorizes the reproductionof apainting entitled Comfort by Rosalie Emslie c 1920s The reproduction of the painting will be incorporated in a book entitled The Modern Girl Feminine Modernities Commodities and the Body in the 1920s by Rosalie Emslie and published by the University of Toronto Press No more than 500 hard copies of the book shall be pressed An electronic book version will also be produced The issuance of the licence does not release the applicant from the obligation to obtain permission for any other use not covered by this licence Section 77 Circumstances in which licence may be issued by Board A licence may be for the reproduction and the public execution of this reproduction NYM Ministries for the public performance the reproduction and the synchronization of two musical works Non exclusive licence issued to 2014 CarswellNat 2569 Cop Bd 2014 06 23 ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 1 The licence authorizes the Reproduction and synchronization of two musical work sentitled Ruby performed by the Megli Sisters and recorded at American Artists Studios author composer a
82. ec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 3 39 This reading of paragraph 2 4 1 c of the Act moves in the direction of technological neutrality in that the number of infringing acts does not vary according to the number of intermediaries in the transmission chain This is consistent with the goal of technological neutrality which the Supreme Court articulated in Entertainment Software Association v Society of Composers Authors and Music Publishers of Canada 2012 SCC 34 2012 2 S C R 231 at paragraphs 5 10 40 There is one act of infringement whether the work is communicated to the public via one BDU or via hundreds of them The measure of damages may depend upon the number of viewers of the work which has a rational connection with compensation unlike the number of intermediaries which does not 41 Paragraph 2 4 1 c serves to distinguish this case from Bishop v Stevens 1990 2 S C R 467 where as noted each unauthorized reproduction was found to be a violation of the copyright holder s rights While that may have been the case for unauthorized communications to the public by telecommunication prior to the passage of paragraph 2 4 1 c and its companion disposition subsection 31 2 of the Act it is no longer the case now 42 am of the view that paragraph 2 4 1 c properly interpreted has the effect of making a network transmission
83. ed by the exception of fair use Public Performance of Musical Works Re SOCAN Tariffs 22 D 1 Audiovisual webcasts and 22 D 2 Audiovisual user generated content for theyears 2007 to 2013 2014 CarswellNat 2616 Cop Bd 2014 07 18 the Board 57 Netflix argued that royalties on free trials are a violation of the Supreme Court principle of technological neutrality established in ESA We do not agree 58 The principle of technological neutrality is that since only the reproduction right is triggered when a CD is sold in a store only the reproduction right should be triggered when a digital album is sold online The CD is an alternative technology to the digital download There is no alternative technology equivalent to a Netflix free trial Video stores never offered a free month s membership with the right to rent as many videos as the customer wanted for no additional charge Thus there is no issue with technological neutrality 59 Netflix also wanted the Board to find that the free trials are fair dealing in the same way that the Board found that free previews are fair dealing We decline to do so for several reasons 60 First the analogy between free previews and free trials is weak In a free preview the customer can hear a portion of a musical work in a degraded format In a free trial the customer can hear complete musical works to the extent that such works are fixed in the audiovisual work being watched 61
84. ent to escape infringement La Presse v Yahoo Qu bec 2014 CanLIl 76357 Que Conseil de presse 2014 12 05 ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 6 A la lecture des deux articles et du tableau comparatif fourni par les plaignants le Conseil constate que l article sign par Martine Turenne est constitu dans sa quasi totalit de passages de l article de La Presse r crits tr s l g rement permutations reformulations mineures modification de la ponctuation et de plusieurs passages repiqu s int gralement sans l utilisation de guillemets Seuls le titre et les phrases d amorce La corruption de l histoire ancienne au Qu bec Pas vraiment sont attribuables Mme Turenne Le Conseil a tabli qu au total 94 du texte est du repiquage int gral ou quasi int gral 7 Le texte publi par Yahoo n apporte ni nouvelle perspective ni recherche originale suivi nouveaux renseignements ou r actions suppl mentaires par rapport l article de Mme L vesque et de M Bergeron 8 Bien que La Presse soit mentionn e comme une source quatre reprises dans le texte publi par Yahoo Qu bec le Conseil estime que dans un cas aussi pouss de reproduction int grale le fait de ne pas attribuer rigoureusement par des guillemets chaque passage du texte ainsi repris est une faute d ontologique qui risque d induire le public dans l erreur quant au v ritable auteur du texte 9 Le Conseil s interroge par ail
85. ese two rights Fn9 The issue was settled in Neighbouring Rights Collective of Canada v Society of Composers Authors amp Music Publishers of Canada 2003 FCA 302 2004 1 F C R 303 F C A at para 11 See also Act s 23 2 always trigger a single payment for any type of sound recording in the case of sound recordings of musical works that payment is always made to a collective society authorized by the Board to collect it Fn10 Act ss 19 2 a 68 2 a iii Re Sound ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC i administers these rights for the vast majority of eligible performers and makers Section 20 Conditions Canada right to remuneration The maker s place of residence at the date of first fixation is a condition of eligibilty to receive equitable remuneration for a recording Re Sound v Fitness Industry Council of Canada 120 C P R 4th 287 F C A 2014 02 24 Evans J 118 Finally Re Sound says that the Board erred in law by reading into section 20 an additional eligibility requirement namely that makers or performers can only receive equitable remuneration for a recording for which they have appointed a collective society to act for them Again do n
86. esseur e s de l Universit du Qu bec Montr al Le v L Universit du Qu bec Montreal 2014 CanLll 16661 http www canlii org fr qc qcdag doc 201 4 2014canlii16661 2014canlii166 61 pdf Que S A T 2014 04 10 64 Telus v Canada Attorney General 2014 CarswellNat 1 2014 FC 1 236 A C W S 3d 360 http canlii ca en ca fct doc 2014 2014fc1 2014fc1 html F C 2014 01 02 65 Tremblay v Plourde 2014 J Q 419 2014EXP 896 J E 2014 489 EYB 2014 232286 2014 QCCS 201 http canlii ca fr qc qccs doc 201 4 201 4qccs201 2014qccs201 htm Que Sup Ct 2014 01 15 66 Trout Point Lodge Ltd v Handshoe 2014 CarswellNS 110 2014 NSSC 62 237 A C W S 3d 940 1077 A P R 343 237 A C W S 3d 940 340 N S R 2d 343 2014 N S J 62 http canlii ca en ns nssc doc 2014 2014nssc62 2014nssc62 html S C N S 2014 02 14 67 Union des artistes v Festival International de Jazz de Montr al 2010 QCCRT 523 ws www canlii org fr qc qccrt doc 2010 201 Oqeert523 201 Oqccrt523 htm Que Labour Board 2010 11 08 judicial review refused sub nomine Union des artistes UDA v Commission des relations du travail 2012 QCCS 1733 2012 CarswellQue 7518 EYB 2012 209432 Que Sup Ct 2012 04 23 affirmed 2014 CarswellQue 6042 2014 QCCA 1268 242 A C W S 3d 415 J E 2014 1208 D T E 2014T 460 EYB 2014 238814 http www canlii org fr qc qcca doc 2014 2014qcca1268 2014qcca1268 h tml Que C A 2014 06 19 6
87. f authorization from the performer or maker 48 For example while a collective society that has failed to file a tariff may not bring an action to recover equitable remuneration from a user it can do so with the written consent of the Minister of Industry subsection 67 1 4 A user of a recording of music sued in such an action might seek to reduce the amount claimed by the collective society on the ground that the society may only collect royalties in respect of recordings for which their makers or performers have authorized it to act for them 49 In my view this theoretical and somewhat remote possibility is not sufficient to bring the present case within the Rogers exception The requirement of Ministerial consent before a society can bring an action to recover equitable remuneration instead of seeking the Board s approval of a tariff is a clear indication that Parliament intended the Board to have primary jurisdiction over the collective enforcement of neighbouring rights including the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing this complex rate setting scheme No such provision limited the copyright holder s right in Rogers to bring an infringement action that could have required a court to decide the same legal question as that decided by the Board 50 Courts have long been familiar with the individual law of copyright through their jurisdiction over infringement actions However they have no similar knowledge of
88. he benefit of understanding their legal rights and obligations When issuing a Norwich Order the Court may retain the authority to ensure that it is not abused by the party obtaining it and can impose temis on how its provisions are carried out The party enforcing the Norwich Order should pay the legal costs and disbursements of the innocent third party Specific warnings regarding the obtaining of legal advice or the like should be included in any correspondance to individuals who are identified by the Norwich Order Limiting the information provided by the third party by releasing only the naine and residential address but not telephone numbers and e mail addresses Ensuring there is a mechanism for the Court to monitor the implementation of the Norwich Order Ensuring that the information that is released remains confidential and not be discloscd to the public and be used only in connection with the action Requiring the party obtaining the order to provide a copy of any proposed demand letter to a11 parties on the motion and to the Court prior to such letter being sent to the alleged infringers The Court should reserve the right to order amendments to the demand letter in the event it contains inappropriate statements Letters sent to individuals whose naines are revealed pursuant to Court order must make clear that the fact that an order for disclosure has been made does not mean that the court has considered the merits of the alleg
89. how a clear right Diffusion Dimedia inc v Librairie Renaud Bray inc 2014 CarswellQue 5833 Que Sup Ct 2014 06 12 Gouin J 24 L article 5 du R glement R glement sur l importation de livres RLRQ c D 8 1 le H glement permet d ailleurs un tel autre approvisionnement lorsque le distributeur exclusif n est pas en mesure de respecter dans les 60 jours de sa r ception la commande de livres en fran ais import s d Europe mais non en stock au Canada ce qui tait le cas dans la pr sente affaire 25 Or il est tr s clair qu il ne sert rien pour Renaud Bray depuis la Date de cessation de placer des commandes de livres du Catalogue aupr s de Dimedia car cette derni re ne les accepte tout simplement plus 26 D un autre c t Dimedia dit tre en mesure de livrer toute telle commande mais c est plut t Renaud Bray qui l emp che de le faire vu le non paiement de la Dette et le Diff rend qui les oppose ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 64 27 Or c est la que le bat blesse 28 En refusant toute commande de livres du Catalogue provenant de Renaud Bray Dimedia a clairement indiqu que le d lai de 60 jours pr vu au H glement ne serait
90. i org fr qc qccq doc 201 4 201 4qccq5697 201 4qccq5697 h tml Que Ct Small Claims 2014 05 14 49 Poss Design Limited v Beograd Machine amp Tools Co Ltd 2014 CarswellOnt 6639 2014 O J 2405 2014 ONSC 3051 240 A C W S 3d 592 http www canlii org en on onsc doc 2014 20140nsc3051 20140nsc3051 pdf Ont Sup Ct 2014 05 21 50 Private Copying 2015 2016 Private Copying 2015 2016 He 2014 CarswellNat 5162 http www cb cda gc ca decisions 2014 201412193 pdf Cop Bd 2014 12 12 51 Public Performance of Musical Works Re SOCAN Tariffs 22 D 1 Audiovisual webcasts and 22 D 2 Audiovisual user generated content ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC for theyears 2007 to 2013 2014 CarswellNat 2616 2014 C B D 3 http www cb cda gc ca tariffs tarifs certified homologues 201 4 socan22d2007 2013 pdf Cop Bd 2014 07 18 52 Public Performance of Sound Recordings Re Re Sound No Tariff 8 Non interactive and semi interactive webcasts 2009 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1577 2014 C B D 2 http www cb cda gc ca decisions 2014 ReSound8 60 motif pdf Cop Bd 2014 05 16 53 Public Performance of Sound Recordings Re Sound Tariff 6 B Use of Recor
91. ic Messier affirme l avoir fait le m me jour et produit un courriel de confirmation de la d fenderesse D 2 Le site du d fendeur Eric Messier a t remis en ligne suite ce retrait 10 Le demandeur soutient que dans les faits les photos n ont jamais t retir es C est ce dernier qu appartient le fardeau d en faire la preuve Le demandeur produit une s rie de courriels et d accus s de r ception de la d fenderesse Godaddy com Cela ne prouve rien Il eu t facile d imprimer la page Web du d fendeur avec une date post rieure au 28 d cembre 2009 En l absence d une telle preuve le demandeur ne s est pas relev de son fardeau de preuve Sa r clamation est rejet e quant la d fenderesse Godaddy com Section 34 Copyright civil remedies Conditions of issuance of a Norwich Order The Court must weigh and balance the privacy rights of potentially innocent users of the internet versus the right of copyright holders to enforce their rights Voltage Pictures v Doe 119 C P R 4th 232 F C 2014 02 20 Alto Prothonotary ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 133 Having considered all of the evidence of the parties their submissions and the jurisprudence there is a number of principles to be gleaned These principles are in addition to the tests to be applied from BMG BMG Canada Inc v Doe 2005 FCA 193 The Court should give consideration to these principles to weigh and balance the privacy rights
92. ima facie case of non compliance with a federal statute has been made out see for example nterprovincial Lottery Corp v Monetary Capital Corp 2006 51 C P R 4th 447 T M Opp Bd and Canadian Bankers Assn v Richmond Savings Credit Union 2000 8 C P R 4th 267 T M Opp Bd However in the present case the ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC di Opponent has not established a prima facie case of copyright infringement as it has not filed any evidence whatsoever in support of its allegations see E Remy Martin amp Co S A v Magnet Trading Corp HK Ltd 1988 23 C P R 3d 242 T M Opp Bd Rather it has simply referenced a recent decision of the Board involving a similar design and the same parties in its pleading Section 2 Definition of infringing Infringement requires the copying substantive part of an original work Animal Welfare International Inc v W3 International Media Ltd 2014 CarswellBC 2902 B C S C 2014 10 01 Ross J 461 The elements of a successful copyright infringement claim were outlined by the Court in bcos Computers Ltd v Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance Ltd 1994 F S R 275 Ch D bcos Citing Ib
93. ion Planification Organisation Publications Syst mes POPS Lt e v 9054 8181 Qu bec Inc 124 C P R 4th 161 FCA 2014 07 25 Gauthier J varying 111 C P R 4th 1 FC 2013 04 25 87 The allocation of costs is a discretionary decision of the judge Section 34 Copyright civil remedies Court s discretion as to costs the non acceptance of a reasonable offer may trigger double costs irrespective of the financial situation of the party who refused the offer Leuthold v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 2014 CarswellNat 2246 F C A 2014 06 27 Pelletier J affirming 2012 CarswellNat 4204 F C 2012 10 29 motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada filed 2014 CarswellNat 3986 S C C 2014 09 30 3 An order of costs is a discretionary order and should not be disturbed unless the court below has erred in principle or the costs award is plainly wrong see Sun Indalex Finance LLC v United Steelworkers 2013 SCC 6 2013 1 S C R 271 at paragraph 247 8 agree with the Trial Judge s comments on risk assessment might add that in this case Ms Leuthold developed a very technical argument in support of an amount which she could never have negotiated in the course of business No one under any circumstances would have paid Ms Leuthold twenty million dollars for the right to broadcast her images six times over a national network In assessing her risk Ms Leuthold was bound to consider if the
94. is no copyright in any arrangement system scheme or method for doing a particular thing or process Delrina Corp c o b Carolian Systems v Triolet Systems Inc 2002 CanLll 11389 ON CA 2002 58 O R 3d 339 C A at para 35 Section 5 Conditions for subsistence of copyright Originality is not a matter of quantity Planification Organisation Publications Syst mes POPS Lt e v 9054 8181 Qu bec Inc 124 C P R 4th 161 F C A 2014 07 25 Gauthier J varying 111 C P R 4th 1 F C 2013 04 25 79 note that the originality of a work is not measured by the number of lines Section 13 Ownership of copyright The employer is the first owner of the copyright in works created by his employee J v M 117 C P R 4th 409 B C S C 2014 01 23 Bunyeat J 61 Even if am incorrect in coming to the conclusion that the Plaintiff could have no claim under the Act would have also concluded that any claim to copyright for what was produced by the Plaintiff and others in their employ at SCMI would result in a claim being available to SCMI under the Act Section 13 Ownership of copyright The employer is the first owner of the copyright in works created by his employee ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fa
95. ison J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 70 Par contre il n est pas suffisant pour les fins d tablir une contravention du droit d auteur de d montrer qu une partie d un ceuvre a t copi e 71 Pour r ussir tablir qu il y a eu telle contravention l oeuvre dans ce cas le texte des manuels d instructions de Hayward doit tre original Fn17 Loi sur le droit d auteur L R C 1985 c C 42 art 5 1 et une partie importante Fn18 Loi sur le droit d auteur L R C 1985 c C 42 art 3 1 devrait tre copi e 72 Selon Carvin un manuel d instructions pour l utilisation d un chlorateur n est qu un document qui aide un consommateur utiliser le produit Dans le cas des produits similaires dans la m me industrie elle plaide que ce n est pas surprenant que les manuels soient similaires vu le manque d originalit et de cr ativit inh rent 73 cet gard et par analogie elle fait r f rence une d cision ontarienne Fn19 Kilvingston Bros Ltd v Herbert Goldberg et al 1957 16 Fox Pat p 164 168 en citant le juge Judson de la Cour Supr me de l Ontario The similarities are plain to be seen but they do not enable me to draw an inference of copying Tombstone workers working on a task of this kind are working with common ideas and with only a limited field for the expression of those ideas It is not surprising that the results are similar 74 Autrement dit l information que
96. ith their embedying media ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 2 London Life compagnie d assurance vie c Canada 2014 CarswellNat 1276 F C A 2014 04 29 Gauthier J 56 Incorporeal rights should not be confused with physical media For example copyright in a work is not seized by seizing the book itself Section 3 Copyright in works Dowloading involves the right of reproduction rather than the right of communication He Sound No Tariff 8 Non interactive and semi interactive webcasts 2009 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1577 Cop Bd 2014 05 16 the Board 214 Second since the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Entertainment Software Association v Society of Composers Authors and Music Publishers of Canada FN2 2012 SCC 34 downloads of musical works or other subject matter do not engage the right of communication to the public by telecommunication but only the reproduction right Therefore the distinction between a communication anda transmission when referring to copyright protected content is now very important A communication is a type of transmission but not all transmissions are communications Section 3 Copyright in works An ancillar
97. ivate Copying CD s are audio recording medium Private Copying 2015 2016 2014 CarswellNat 5162 Cop Bd 2014 12 12 26 The core issue in this decision is whether or not CDs qualify as a medium ordinarily used for private copying pursuant to section 79 of the Act In our opinion they do Section 83 Filing of proposed tariffs Tariffs are prospective and of general application Public Performance of Musical Works Re Statement of Royalties to Be Collected by SOCAN for the Public Performance or the Communication to the Public by Telecommunication in Canada of Musical or Dramatico Musical Works Tariff 4 Concerts 2009 2014 CarswellNat 2802 Cop Bd 2014 07 25 54 Prospective users who did not file a timely Objection are not official objectors However tariffs are prospective and of general application in that the Board imposes obligations on absent users ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC Some account must therefore be taken of the interests of those who are not before us and who will be affected by our decision Section 84 Distribution by collecting body Levies must be distributed amongst three groups authors performers and makers
98. l avait accept de laisser la propri t du site Lasant ou son entreprise Section 13 Ownership of copyright An assignment cannot be the basis for an action for an infringement that occured prior to the assignment Denturist Group of Ontario v Denturist Association of Canada 2014 CarswellNat 4191 F C 2014 10 16 Manson J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 68 However agree with the Applicant that written copyright assignments that post date this application cannot form the basis of an action for infringement except in respect of infringing activities occurring after the date of the effective written assignments JL De Ball Canada Inc v 421254 Ontario Ltd 1999 1999 CanLil 9222 FC 179 FTR 231 at para 24 MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC E Section 19 Right to remuneration Canada The right to an equitable remuneration for makers and performers of sound recordings is subject to the eligibility conditions set forth by section 20 Re Sound v Fitness Industry Council of Canada 120 C P R 4th 287 F C A 2014 02 24 Evans J 28 Subection 19 1 creates a right to an equitable remuneration for makers and performers of sound recordings when performed in public In
99. ld suffer if the respondent uses the information Section 34 Copyright civil remedies In the settlement of a class action the extra judicial costs must be in relation to the result of the settlement Waldman v Thomson Reuters Canada Limited 120 C P R 4th 127 Ont Sup Ct 2014 03 04 Perell J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 117 The benefits of the settlement to class members and the benefit of class actions to class counsel are always interrelated matters In Lavier v MyTravel Canada Holidays Inc 2013 ONCA 92 reversing 2012 ONSC 1673 the Court of Appeal ruled that erred in awarding class counsel a fee that was grossly disproportionate to the benefit and access to justice obtained by the class which had only taken up a very small portion of the settlement funds the balance of which reverted to the defendant 118 In the case at bar the court should have been afforded the option of reducing the Counsel Fee as it thought appropriate and then approving the Settlement Agreement For settlement approval purposes better still is the situation where the court has the option of reallocating a portion of class counsel s fee to enhance the benefits of class members The court was provided with that option in Smith v National Money Mart 2010 ONSC 1334 aff d 2011 ONCA 233 where approved the settlement and reduced class counsel s fee MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier
100. leurs quant aux limites que devraient respecter les m dias lorsqu ils citent des articles crits par d autres Est il acceptable par exemple de publier un texte compos en totalit de citations d ment plac es entre guillemets provenant d un article publi dans un autre m dia m me si le texte est pleinement MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC attribu Lorsqu il cite des extraits d un reportage provenant d un autre m dia doit il s imposer un traitement minimal pour publier un texte Dans le cas de la pr sente plainte il aurait sans doute t souhaitable que l autorisation des auteurs ait t obtenue Le Conseil estime que dans un cas o les contraintes de la pratique journalistique ne permettent pas de bonifier une information mieux vaut produire un tr s court r sum du contenu que l on souhaite reprendre et l accompagner d un hyperlien conduisant la source cit e Section 2 Definition of legal representative An authorization must be from the copyright owner or his legal representative Pokora v 9064 0723 Qu bec inc 2014 QCCQ 5697 Que Ct Small Claims 2014 05 14 Chicoine J 5 CONSID RANT que dame Berry Fortin alors amie du demandeur n avait aucune autorit ni mandat
101. llOnt 6639 Ont Sup Ct 2014 05 21 Morgan J 22 Using this principle as guidance one can readily conclude that this is not a case for equitable setoff An unquantifiable damages claim for copyright breach or wrongful competition and marketing of goods is not connected with let alone closely connected with the two unpaid invoices on which Beograd seeks judgment Section 38 1 Statutory damages The amount of the statutory damages are within the realm of discretion of the courts A condemnation to statutory damages could be joint and several Tremblay v Plourde 2014 J Q 419 Que Sup Ct 2014 01 15 Dallaire J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 295 Le tribunal ne d terminant pas de condamnation a des dommages punitifs consid re qu il y a lieu de prononcer la condamnation aux dommages et int r ts solidairement entre les d fendeurs 296 En effet il est en preuve que le d fendeur est l me dirigeante de GTR et ce qui b n ficie l un b n ficie l autre MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC e Section 38 69 1 Statutory damages The proper award of statutory damages is sometime difficult to evaluate Tremblay v Plourde 2014 J Q 419 Que Sup Ct
102. llied Workers v Maritime Environmental Training Institute Ltd 2014 CarswellNS 125 2014 NSSC 64 237 A C W S 3d 746 1081 A P R 1 341 NSR 2d 1 ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC http www canlii org en ns nssc doc 201 4 201 4nssc64 2014nssc64 html S C N S 2014 02 20 Robertson J 23 Cased cited by the respondents Neudorf v Nettwerk Productions Ltd 1999 CanLil 5293 BC SC 1999 B C J No 2831 2000 3 W W R 522 and Wall v Horn Abbott Ltd 2007 NSSC 197 also set out the requirements for joint authorship that include both originality and expression Although it is not required that joint authors make an equal contribution the joint author must made a substantial contribution to the expression of the ideas 26 have carefully read the affidavit evidence of Gus Doyle Applicants representative The applicants have failed to convince me on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities that the scaffolding manual was a work of joint authorship His affidavit evidence does not establish in any manner the applicants contribution to the creation of this work His affidavit consists of bare assertions as to ownership of the work It appears
103. lly Ms Leuthold argues that an order of costs ought not to be such as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute Once again this is an argument based on impecuniosity The sad fact of the matter is that litigation produces winners and losers that is why it MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC is such a blunt tool in the administration of justice But justice is not served by allowing persons who have imposed costs on others by pursuing or defending a claim which lacks merit to avoid the consequences of their behaviour Such a policy would be more likely to bring the administration of justice into disrepute than the result in this case Section 34 Copyright civil remedies No interlocutory injunction if irreperable harm not proven Geophysical Service Incorporated v Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petrolium Board 2014 CarswellNat 2186 F C 2014 05 09 Annis J 38 Accordingly conclude that the applicant must demonstrate by clear and non speculative evidence that it will suffer irreparable harm not compensable in damages between now and the outcome of the trial if the injunction is not granted Section 34 Copyright civil remedies Interlocutory injuction refused if Plaintiff does not s
104. mprehensive analysis in Meads v Meads is yet another person who claimed this kind of intellectual property interest He too also employed a copyright and trade mark ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC i notice that was reproduced in that decision It and Ms Rogozinsky s document share common passages suggesting that these two items are related and descend from a common ancestor 85 Meads Meads v Meads 2012 ABQB 571 Alta Q B 2012 09 18 provides a thorough rebuttal to this entire concept there is no such thing as a common law copyright or trade mark as both property interests are the result of legislation paras 501 503 copyright cannot subsist in a personal name para 502 LAW BUSINESS SCIENCE ART ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 98 ROBIC ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B
105. n 1 Article 13 7 de la Loi laquelle peut tre verbale 12 Ainsi d une part l crit est requis afin de permettre au cessionnaire ou d tenteur d un droit titre ou int r t d exercer son recours il s agit d une exigence de droit substantiel non pas d une regle de preuve ou de proc dure Fn 2 Bradale Distribution Enterprises Inc c Safety First Inc 1987 18 C I P R 71 C S Motel 6 Inc c No 6 Motel Ltd 1981 C P R 44 C F D autre part la personne ne d tenant qu une licence non exclusive d utilisation d une oeuvre ne poss de pas l int r t requis afin d exercer un recours en contrefa on de droit d auteur Fn 3Normand TAMARO Loi sur le droit d auteur texte annot 9e dition Carswell 2012 p 881 27 Ainsi lon se retrouve devant une jurisprudence contradictoire d un c t les d cisions Bradale Distribution Enterprises Inc Bradale Distribution Enterprises Inc v Safety First Inc 1987 18 C I P R 71 Que Sup Ct et Harmony Consulting Ltd Harmony Consulting Ltd v G A Foss Transport Ltd 2011 FC 340 affd 2012 FCA 226 donnant ouverture dans certaines circonstances la reconnaissance de contrats nunc pro tunc de cession de droit d auteur et de l autre c t la d cision J L De Ball Canada Inc J L de Ball Canada Inc v 421254 Ontario Ltd 5 C P R 4th 352 F C T D 1999 12 30 faisant chec au recours introduit par le cessionnaire fond sur des violations de droit d a
106. n est pas oblig e d tre en accord avec la SOCAN mais de simplement mettre fin des paiements et attendre d tre poursuivie n est pas la facon la plus appropri e pour exprimer son m contentement 40 Par contre dans le pr sent cas en prenant en consid ration les facteurs annonc s l art 38 1 5 de la LDA le Tribunal estime quitable d utiliser un facteur de trois 3 fois les redevances et non pas quatre 4 Section 38 1 Statutory damages Exemplary damages shall not be a duplication of punitive damages Canada Attorney General v Rundle Nec Plus Ultra 119 C P R 4th 225 Ont Sup Ct Damages 2014 04 09 James J 16 While it is clear that punitive damages are available in addition to an award of statutory damages it appears there is some overlap between clauses a and b of subsection 38 1 5 and the considerations that inform an entitlement to punitive damages Subsection 38 1 5 specifically refers to the question of the conduct of the parties and the possibility that the infringer acted in bad faith Punitive damages also address serious misconduct The possibility ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 71 of such an award becomes engaged
107. n or a final decision e Section 66 51 Interim decision An appeal pending before the Supreme Court of Canada is a proper reason to maintain the status quo Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors Composers and Publishers in Canada v ARTV 2014 CarswellNat 4808 Cop Bd 2014 11 27 9 SODRAC requests the interim extension of the licence agreement which the Board had already extended once as per the interim decision of January 5 2012 until a final decision is issued ARTV agrees with SODRAC s request Given that the 2008 2012 arbitration is before the Supreme Court the parties agree once more not to proceed on the merits until a final decision is issued in this matter ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC Section 66 52 Variation of decision For this section to apply a material change should have occured The Board has an implied jurisdiction to correct its errors Re Sound v Fitness Industry Council of Canada 120 C P R 4th 287 F C A 2014 02 24 Evans J 86 First the Board s express jurisdiction to vary an order under section 66 52 of the Act is exercisable only if the Board is satisfied that there has been a material change in circumstance
108. nd publisher are unknown in the event that it is protected by copyright and Child s Request written by William L Carter and published by Tennessee Music The licence also authorizes the public performance of the musical works during the workshop that is to be incorporated on a DVD MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC ii No more than 100 copies of the DVD shall be made Section 77 Circumstances in which licence may be issued by the Board A licence could only issue for a protected work National Film Board of Canada Toronto Ontario for the incorporation the public performance the reproduction and the communication to the public by telecommunication of two images Non exclusive licence issued to 2014 CarswellNat 3944 Cop Bd 2014 09 22 1 The licence authorizes the incorporation in a documentary film entitled My Prairie Home the public performance the reproduction and the communication to the public by telecommunication of the following images in the event that they are protected by copyright beginning September 1 2012 A framed print of asemi truck with lights title and author unknown A photograph of the Calgary skyline title and author unknown Section 79 Definitions Pr
109. ndre que des mesures qui leur soit d favorables soient prises par l institution d enseignement qu ils fr quentent 120 Tel que mentionn auparavant la preuve produite au cours des s ances arbitrales permet d affirmer que le demandeur a agi de facon inacceptable en reprenant dans son livre certains textes contenus dans les ouvrages des auteurs Marceau et Tremblay sans mentionner leur origine Cette facon d agir constitue du plagiat Un professeur d universit qui plagie d autres personnes dans une de ses publications commet en r alit une faute grave Section 27 Infringement generally Knowledge is an essential element to be proved for secondary infringement ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC i Sandhu Singh Hamdard Trust v Navsun Holdings Ltd 2014 CarswellNat 4989 F C 2014 11 26 McVeigh J 110 The Plaintiff s passing off claim against the defendant Master Web fails Similarly the copyright claim is dismissed against the defendant Master Web as Master Web had no knowledge of any allegedly infringing activity and the copyright settlement is a complete defense to the claim e Section 29 Research private study etc All free trials are not cover
110. ne email contained the following reply after being informed of his infringement Lol you stupid f k I m in canada sic I m protected here first offence 250 dollars lol 9 The plaintiff was only able to demonstrate one sale of the product obtained by his affidavit but am satisfied that many other illicit sales of the product were made by the defendant The price differential on the average sale by the plaintiff in comparison with that by the defendant was in the order of 1 100 10 award the plaintiff statutory damages in the total amount of 20 000 Section 38 1 Staturory damages Staturory damages does not exclude punitive damages Mitchell Repair Information Company v Wayne Long 2014 CarswellNat 2195 F C 2014 06 11 Annis J 14 It is noted that opting for statutory damages pursuant to section 38 1 of the Copyright Act does not affect any right that the copyright owner may have to an award of exemplary or punitive damages Section 38 1 Statutory damages It is to the plaintiff to opt between statutory damages and damages and profits not to the Court ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC f Animal Welfare International Inc v W3 Intern
111. ned in BCAA BCAA wv Office and Professional Employees Int Union 2001 BCSC 156 B C S C 2001 01 26 at para 186 where the Court held 186 the overall arrangement of commonplace elements such as colours shapes and designs can obviously result in an original artistic work for which the author is entitled to copyright protection Such a work cannot be copied without the author s consent 465 The Plaintiff AWI submits that based on the considerations relevant to determining originality as outlined in the jurisprudence the originality of the website is reflected in its general look and feel which encompass the products selected to appear on the homepage the size of the product photos the size of the price text the selection of an image to function as a logo for the website the location of the logo and the general location of images text and icons on the webpage 466 AWI submits that the website layout was implemented finalized and updated on instruction from AWI There is no evidence the website was created using standard form templates or standard colour and icon schema The atypical placement of icons varied icon sizing decisions as to where top selling products would be listed if prices would be listed on the homepage how often the products on the homepage changed and the overall website layout and colour scheme are all indicative of CVT being an original creation Section 2 Definition of every original wo
112. neutral interpretation of the Copyright Act that fails to achieve the correct balance between the rights of copyright holders and users as well as the public interest in fostering innovation Whether the Court of Appeal erred by departing from this Court s jurisprudence on the grounds that they provide insufficient guidance SODRAC applied to certify a proposed tariff which related to the royalties on copies of cinematographic works for retail rental and theatrical use It also applied to set the terms and conditions of a licence for the reproduction of musical works in its repertoire by the ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC CBC The Board consolidated the examination of the CBC and another arbitration matter The application was allowed The tariff was certified and licences were issued to CBC and the other broadcaster An interim order extended the 2008 12 licence pending a final determination of SODRAC s s 70 2 application concerning licences covering 2012 16 CBC sought judicial review to set aside several terms in a 2008 12 licence Federal Court of Appeal File No A 516 12 It also sought judicial review of the extension of the 2008 12 licence Federal Court of A
113. nferred on copyright holders nor do the scale agreements under the Status of the Artist Act bind collective societies governed by the Copyright Act Canadian Artists Representation Le Front des artistes canadiens CARFAC v National Gallery of Canada NGC 121 C P R 4th 1 S C C 2014 05 14 Rothstein J reversing 2013 CarswellNat 507 F C A 2013 03 04 which was reversing 2012 CarswellNat 4332 C A P P R T 2012 02 16 23 An artists association s function is to bargain with producers for the fixing of what is analogous to a minimum wage for any artist who may agree to provide his or her artistic work to the producer Establishing a minimum fee for the use of existing works does not affect any of the rights conferred on copyright holders under s 3 of the Copyright Act Minimum fees may in some circumstances affect whether and under what conditions artists will provide a producer ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 42 with the right to use their artistic works namely preventing an artist from doing so if no producer is willing to offer him or her the minimum amount under the applicable scale agreement Ultimately however the decision of whether or not to provide
114. ntative Canadian Artists Representation Le Front des artistes canadiens CARFAC v National Gallery of Canada NGC 121 C P R 4th 1 S C C 2014 05 14 Rothstein J reversing 2013 CarswellNat 507 F C A 2013 03 04 which was reversing 2012 CarswellNat 4332 C A P P R T 2012 02 16 4 Copyrights assigned or exclusively licensed to the collective society must comply with the Copyright Act requirement that such assignments or exclusive licences be in writing and signed by the copyright holder or his or her agent s 13 4 Collective societies may set tariffs for the use of such copyrights ss 70 1 and 70 13 The Copyright Board is responsible for certifying these tariffs s 70 15 Section 13 Ownership of copyright Claiming unemployement benefits implies that the author was an employee and could not claim first ownership of the work he created Kennedy v Ruminski 2014 CarswellNat 1842 F C 2014 05 30 Phelan J 23 find no merit in the Respondents contention that the relationship at issue was a partnership with a weekly draw 24 The Respondent reported his income as employment income for tax purposes and identified the Applicant as his employer He knew that the Applicant made the necessary source deductions from his weekly pay cheques His claim for employment benefits constitutes an admission that at least he saw himself as an employee This fact combined with the nature of weekly payments and his ch
115. o have primary jurisdiction over the collective enforcement of neighbouring rights including the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing this complex rate setting scheme Re Sound v Fitness Industry Council of Canada 120 C P R 4th 287 F C A 2014 02 24 Evans J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 44 The substantive legal question in dispute in the present application is whether the Copyright Act entitles a collective society to a tariff calculated on the basis of all the sound recordings eligible for equitable remuneration that are used to accompany particular activities or only those in respect of which makers or performers have authorized the society to act on their behalf This is a question of statutory interpretation because it is not limited to the facts of this case 45 Re Sound contends that the presumption that reasonableness is the standard for reviewing an administrative tribunal s interpretation of its enabling legislation is rebutted when the Board is interpreting the Act Hogers Communications Inc v Society of Composers Authors and Music Publishers of Canada 2012 SCC 35 2012 2 S C R 283 Rogers Writing for the majority in that case Justice Rothstein stated at para 14 It would be inconsistent for the court to review a legal question on judicial review of a decision of the Board on a deferential standard and decide exactly the same legal question de novo if it arose in an infringement
116. o robic com In relation to the first photograph Ashoka award Charles Leary 20 000 In relation to the second photograph the Lodge award Mr Perret 20 000 In relation to the third photograph Smulders award Trout Point Lodge Ltd 20 000 In relation to the fourth photograph award Trout Point Lodge Ltd 20 000 MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC E 28 In addition to these statutory damages award the applicants punitive damages of 100 000 Section 38 1 Statutory damages The need to deter is one of the factor to be considered In the case of collective society the Court has discretion to fix the approriate multiplier Soci t canadienne des auteurs compositeurs et diteurs de musique c 9004 1922 Qu bec inc Bar Asserie 2014 CarswellQue 3236 Que Sup Ct 2014 03 31 Morrison J 37 S agit il d un cas ou il est n cessaire de cr er un effet dissuasif l gard de violations ventuelles du droit d auteur 38 Le Tribunal est d avis qu il est n cessaire de cr er un tel effet La d fenderesse n a pas le droit de simplement ignorer les droits d auteurs et de plaider son incompr hension des r gles applicables ou la facturation de la SOCAN 39 La d fenderesse
117. obligations which now include a new restitution order would MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC ii make the imposition of a fine very burdensome to him In this regard am compelled to remark that am of the view that it is more important for him to pay restitution to his fraud victims than to pay a fine to the federal Crown therefore am not satisfied as must be according to section 734 2 of the Code that he has the ability to pay a fine am of the same mind as the sentencing judge in Hu noted above R v Bing Min Peter Hu 15 November 2008 Vancouver Docket 24383 B C S C who imposed a conditional sentence on Mr Hu due to his strained financial circumstances and the fact that he was a repeat offender hasten to add that do not suggest that a custodial sentence should automatically be substituted for a fine in all cases where the offender does not have the ability to pay a fine However in cases where significant aggravating factors present like in Mr Strowbridge s case it can be appropriate 52 Accordingly would sentence Mr Strowbridge to two months incarceration for his trademark and copyright offences to be served consecutively to his sentences for fraud and breaches of probation
118. of Statutes 5th ed 2008 at pp 205 and 325 The SAA s explicit reference to the Copyright Act in s 6 2 b i supports that presumption In the absence of evidence of conflict or that one of these laws is intended to provide an exhaustive declaration of the applicable law the two statutes must be read together in a manner that allows them to work in a complementary fashion Section 2 Definition of architectural work Even if qualified as an architectural design a business sytem using computer is not a building or structure and therefore not an architectural work J v M 117 C P R 4th 409 BC SC 2014 01 23 Bunyeat J 60 While the Amended Notice of Civil Claim describes the Work as an architectural design it is clear that the Work does not meet the definition of architectural work It is not a building or structure or model thereof At best the Plaintiff and her team implemented an idea as to how to reshape the nature of the order tracking and shipping system that was in place at SCMI Section 2 Definition of Board The content of the duty of fairness is variable Re Sound v Fitness Industry Council of Canada 120 C P R 4th 287 F C A 2014 02 24 Evans J 34 The black letter rule is that courts review allegations of procedural unfairness by administrative decision makers on a standard of correctness Canada Citizenship and Immigration v Khosa 2009 SCC 12 2009 1 S C R 339 at
119. of cable programming material to the public via BDUs a single infringement of a copyright holder s rights if the network has not properly cleared the rights with respect to that transmission In this case the six transmissions of the documentary containing Ms Leuthold s images in violation of her copyright constituted six acts of infringement as found by the Trial Judge Section 3 Copyright in works The right to reproduce and the right to execute are different rights Canadian Broadcasting v Sodrac 2003 Inc 118 C P R 4th 79 F C A 2014 03 31 Pelletier J leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada granted 2014 S C C A 249 S C C 48 In my view this passage reaffirms the fundamental distinction between reproduction and performance communication to the public by telecommunication that the Court articulated in Bishop v Stevens Nothing in this passage or elsewhere in ESA would ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC i authorize the Board to create a category of reproductions or copies which by their association with broadcasting would cease to be protected by the Act ESA did not explicitly or by necessary implication overrule Bishop v Stevens
120. of the damages and profits otherwise claimable which are referred to in subsection 35 1 6 In exercising its discretion to award statutory damages the Court is required to consider all relevant factors including the good or bad faith of the defendant the conduct of the parties before and during the proceedings and the need to deter other infringements of the copyright in question 7 The evidence in this matter demonstrates that the defendant acted in bad faith by attempting to conceal and obfuscate his identity including posing as a lawyer warning the plaintiff not to proceed further In addition the defendant refused to discontinue infringing copyright when asked and held the plaintiff in derision by taunting it MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC s with words to the effect that he could not be found or stopped and showing the Jolly Roger sign in one of his rejoinders 8 As if this were not sufficiently outrageous and high handed the plaintiffs email contained derogatory invective including the use of swearing and statements intended to be derogatory concerning the sexual orientations of the plaintiffs personnel accompanied by pornographic materials and boasting about his unlawful conduct For example o
121. ommercial media monitoring tariff was broadened to include municipal governments as potential tariff users However the records indicate that no municipal governments are currently users of the non commercial tariff Therefore we do not think that their non representation in the current proceedings is an issue Media Monitoring 2006 2007 2008 Re 2008 CarswellNat 2007 Copyright Bd 20 June 2008 Copyright Board Decision at para 8 Section 70 15 Homologation ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC i Tariffs are prospective and of general application Public Performance of Musical Works Re Statement of Royalties to Be Collected by SOCAN for the Public Performance or the Communication to the Public by Telecommunication in Canada of Musical or Dramatico Musical Works Tariff 4 Concerts 2009 2014 CarswellNat 2802 Cop Bd 2014 07 25 54 Prospective users who did not file a timely Objection are not official objectors However tariffs are prospective and of general application in that the Board imposes obligations on absent users Some account must therefore be taken of the interests of those who are not before us and who will be affected by our decision
122. or 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 83 current use It is difficult to see how this obligation could be discharged if as Re Sound argues its repertoire includes all performances and recordings eligible for equitable remuneration While a collective society would be aware of eligible recordings and performances for which it had been authorized to act this would not necessarily be true of the others 111 Fourth it would be anomalous if a collective society were able to collect royalties for all eligible recordings used in a particular context but distributed them only to the performers and makers of recordings in its repertoire and to those whom it was able to discover Re Sound stated that it holds in a trust account the money that it had collected but could not distribute pending its identification of those who had not signed up with it What happens to the funds owing to those that Re Sound never identifies is unclear In my view Parliament should not lightly be taken to have intended to create a regime that produces such cumbersome and impractical results Section 67 1 Filing of proposed tariffs Subsection 67 1 4 provides an incentive for collective societies to file a proposed tariff Re Sound v Fitness Industry Council of Canada 120
123. ore readily and reliably measurable because it is technologically possible and because it is a transactional price 188 We agree with Re Sound that minimum fees are generally required to cover the cost of issuing licences Section 67 1 Filing of proposed tariffs A collective cannot file a Tariff for rights it does not administer Re Sound No Tariff 8 Non interactive and semi interactive webcasts 2009 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1577 Cop Bd 2014 05 16 ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 215 Third Re Sound only administers rights of public performance and the communication to the public by telecommunication for the benefit of sound recording makers and performers MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 85 Section 68 Board to consider proposed tariffs and objections Ancillary use is to be attached to the main use Re Sound No Tariff 8 Non interactive and semi interactive webcasts 2009 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1577 Cop Bd 2014 05 16 72 In our view the Internet simulcast of a radio station s over the air signal is a textbook example of an ancillary use that should be dealt with at the same time as the main use The value per listener for simulcasting and for over the air b
124. ot agree 119 Requiring a performer or maker to sign up a recording with a collective society before being able to receive equitable remuneration is not of the same character as the eligibility conditions in section 20 namely the maker s place of residence at the date of first fixation or where the fixations occurred These cannot be changed after the recording has been made and determine whether equitable remuneration is ever payable in respect of a particular recording In contrast makers or performers of recordings may at any time authorize a collective society to act on their behalf in respect of a recording Moreover as already noted signing up with a collective society is hardly an onerous requirement Section 27 Infringement generally What is on the Internet is not free to use Labrecque O Sauna v Trudel Centre Bellaza s e n c 2014 QCCQ 2595 Que Ct Small Claims 2014 03 28 Gervais J 48 Le fait que les d fendeurs aient pu mettre la main sur cette photographie par l interm diaire du moteur de recherche Google sur Internet vient il alors changer le droit dont jouit madame Labrecque 49 On serait sans doute premi re vue tent de le penser vu la grande d mocratisation de l information qu am ne Internet ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1
125. ound No Tariff 8 Non interactive and semi interactive webcasts 2009 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1577pdf Cop Bd 2014 05 16 91 Again Re Sound s concerns while not unreasonable must be supported by evidence before we can act on them Section 68 Board to consider proposed tariffs and objections Public Performance of Sound Recordings Re Re Sound No Tariff 8 Non interactive and semi interactive webcasts 2009 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1577 Cop Bd 2014 05 16 ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 88 101 It is important not to confuse a greater of formulation with a minimum fee or a recoupable advance Under these scenarios the user pays the greater of a fixed amount and the amount a formula yields Here Re Sound is proposing that the user pay the largest amount of royalties yielded by two different formulas The purpose of a minimum fee is to ensure that users cannot use protected sound recordings for free The purpose of Re Sound s proposed formula is to maximize royalties as a function of a user s business model and Success Section 68 Board to consider proposed tariffs and objections Public Performance of Sound Recordings Re Re Sound No
126. para 43 35 Courts give no deference to decision makers when the issue is whether the duty of fairness applies in given administrative and legal contexts This is evident from the discussion in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick 2008 SCC 9 2008 1 S C R 190 at paras 77 et seq Dunsmuir of whether David Dunsmuir was entitled to procedural fairness before his employment in the provincial public service was terminated ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 info robic com Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 36 However the standard of review applicable to an allegation of procedural unfairness concerning the content of the duty in a particular context and whether it has been breached is more nuanced The content of the duty of fairness is variable because it applies to a wide range of administrative action actors statutory regimes and public programs with differing impacts on individuals Flexibility is necessary to ensure that individuals can participate in a meaningful way in the administrative process and that public bodies are not subject to procedural obligations that would prejudice the public interest in effective and efficient public decision making Section 2 definition of Board Parliament intended the Board t
127. pas respect permettant par le fait m me l importation de livres du Catalogue aupr s d autres sources d approvisionnement Section 34 Copyright civil remedies What are the connecting factors for a Canadian court to have jurisdiction Jules Jordan Video inc v 144942 Canada inc 2014 CarswellQue 6977 Que Sup Ct 2014 07 15 Gouin J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 54 Dans l arr t L pine Fn35 Soci t canadienne des postes c L pine 2009 CSC paragr 36 voir aussi Iraq State of c Heerema Zwijndrecht b v 2013 QCCA 1112 paragr 13 G rald GOLDSTEIN Comp tence internationale indirecte du tribunal tranger Droit international priv coll JurisClasseur Qu bec Montr al LexisNexis jour au 1 janvier 2012 pp 11 14 le juge Le Bel crit que l article 3164 C c Q tablit comme condition fondamentale de la reconnaissance d un jugement tranger au Qu bec l existence d un lien important entre le litige et le tribunal d origine Les articles 3165 3168 noncent ensuite de mani re plus sp cifique les facteurs de rattachement permettant de conclure un lien suffisant entre le litige et l autorit trang re dans certaines situations 55 Ainsi si l un des facteurs nonc s l article 3168 C c Q trouve application l on peut alors plus facilement conclure l existence d un lien important entre le litige et le tribunal d origine tel qu articul l article 3164 C
128. pour lier l une ou l autre des soci t s d fenderesses Section 2 Definition of literary work A computer program is a literary work Tremblay v Plourde 2014 J Q 419 Que Sup Ct 2014 01 15 Dallaire J 267 Cette page web couverte en vertu de la Loi sur le droit d auteur est la propri t de la demanderesse 268 En effet la Loi sur le droit d auteur pr voit son article 2 que le programme d ordinateur est une ceuvre litt raire Fn 12 Loi sur le droit d auteur LRC 1985 c C 42 Section 2 Definition of maker Two components are required hiring of artists and making or representing a work Union des artistes v Festival International de Jazz de Montr al 2014 CarswellQue 6042 Que C A 2014 06 19 Doyon J affirming 2012 CarswellQue 7518 Que ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC Sup Ct 2012 04 23 which was refusing judicial review of 2010 QCCRT 523 Que Lab Bd 2010 11 08 34 La CRT rappelle que la notion de producteur au sens de l article 2 de la LSA rec le deux composantes 1 la r tention des services d un artiste 2 en vue de produire ou de repr senter en public une uvre artistique dans un domaine de production vis par
129. ppeal File No A 63 13 Section 3 Copyright in works The viewer reader or listener is not liable to the owner of the copyright for infringement merely by virtue of having seen or heard the infringing material Geophysical Service Incorporated v Nwest Energy Corp 2014 CarswellAlta 546 Alta Q B 2014 04 07 Robertson Master 67 The claims for breach of confidence and copyright infringement as understand it proceed from the premise that the simple receipt of information either confidential information or copyright material creates a liability to the owner of the confidential information or the copyright work even if the recipient was unaware of the confidentiality claim or the copyright by the owner 78 In regards to copyright the claim is in essence that if a person obtains a pirated copy of copyright material and performs it or shows it to others or plays it on the radio then the viewer reader or listener is liable to the owner of the copyright for infringement merely by virtue of having seen or heard it The Copyright Act Canada goes to great lengths to define what constitutes infringement of copyright but have been unable to find in any of the definitions and exceptions to definitions that merely receiving reading or hearing a copyright work constitutes infringement even if the recipient knew that the work is a pirated copy Section 3 Copyright in works Incorporeal rights should not be confused w
130. pplied in light of the objective sought to be achieved through Rule 420 which is to deter parties from incurring costs and inflicting them on others by creating a financial incentive to compromise their claims The incentive in the case of the double costs rule is the avoidance of a penalty do not think it is contentious to say that doubling the costs a party would otherwise have to pay or imposing costs on a modestly successful party is a penalty As a result it does not assist Ms Leuthold to say that costs should not operate as a penalty Costs should not operate as a penalty unless the Rules specifically intend them to do so 12 Ms Leuthold argues that having regard to her financial circumstances an order for costs of 80 000 is punitive It is true that an impecunious claimant with a meritorious claim should not be prevented from bringing his or her claim by an order for security for costs or advance costs see British Columbia Minister of Forests v Okanagan Indian Band 2003 SCC 71 2003 3 S C R 371 at paragraph 36 and following However once a matter has proceeded to trial and judgment has been rendered a party s impecuniosity is not a relevant factor in the assessment of costs The person entitled to costs has had to incur the costs of proceeding to trial and has the right to be compensated within the limits prescribed by the Rules of Court Issues of enforceability are distinct from issues of entitlement 13 Fina
131. propriate limitation period would be six years pursuant to ss 3 5 and 3 6 c Section 53 Register to be evidence Copyright registration does not create but declares rights Geophysical Service Incorporated v Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petrolium Board 2014 CarswellNat 2186 F C 2014 05 09 Annis J 21 Pursuant to section 53 2 of the Copyright Act RSC 1985 c C 42 GSI relies upon its certificate of registration as presumptive evidence that copyright subsists in the data and that GSI is the owner of the copyright It acknowledges however that copyright registration does not create but only declares the right and that in the absence of proof to the contrary the person registered is deemed to hold the right claimed by him See Grignon v Roussell 1991 FCJ No 557 44 FTR 121 Section 53 Register to be evidence The presumptions are rebuttable Planification Organisation Publications Systemes POPS Lt e v 9054 8181 Qu bec Inc 124 C P R 4th 161 F C A 2014 07 25 Gauthier J varying 111 C P R 4th 1 F C 2013 04 25 68 Such a certificate of registration is evidence that the copyright subsists and that the person registered is the owner of the copyright The presumption created by the certificate can be rebutted by credible evidence to the contrary Fox on Canadian Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs 4th ed Toronto Carswell 2014 at page 20 6 Hughes on Copyright amp Industrial Design 2n
132. r les d pens un examen de l ensemble des circonstances dans lesquelles s est d roul le proc s permet de comprendre pourquoi elle a choisi de ne pas les accorder aux intim es De surcroit ce n est que durant le proces qu il est devenu apparent que l intervenante finangait le litige au profit des intim es qui de ce fait n ont rien eu d bourser Section 34 Copyright civil remedies The burden to prove the infringement lays upon the plaintiff Chayer v Messier 2014 CarswellQue 860 Que Ct 2014 01 27 Coutl e J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 8 Le demandeur fonde sa r clamation contre ces deux d fendeurs sur l inaction de ces derni res enlever les trois photos contenues dans les deux sites Internet du d fendeur Eric Messier h berg par elles MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 56 9 En ce qui a trait a la d fenderesse Godaddy com la preuve d montre que cette derni re a suspendu le site du d fendeur Eric Messier du moment que le demandeur a signifi que ses droits d auteurs avaient t viol s Le m me jour soit le 28 d cembre 2009 la d fenderesse adressait un avis au d fendeur Eric Messier pour qu il retire ces photos En t moignage le d fendeur Er
133. r qc qccs doc 201 4 2014qccs4727 2014qccs4727 ht ml Que Sup Ct 2014 10 03 in appeal 500 09 024803 140 59 Sandhu Singh Hamdard Trust v Navsun Holdings Ltd 2014 CarswellNat 4989 2014 F C J 1220 2014 FC 1139 http www canlii org en ca fct doc 20 14 201 4fc1 139 201 4fc1139 html F C 2014 11 26 60 Soci t canadienne des auteurs compositeurs et diteurs de musique c 9004 1922 Qu bec inc Bar Asserie 2014 CarwellQue 3236 243 A C W S 3d 431 EYB 2014 235851 2014 QCCS 1512 http www canlii org fr qc qccs doc 2014 2014qccs1512 2014qccs1512 p ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC df Que Sup Ct 2014 03 31 61 Soci t de d veloppement des entreprises culturelles SODEC v Soci t Radio Canada SRC 2014 CarswellQue 2051 2014 QCCS 951 241 A C W S 3d 838 J E 2014 988 EYB 2014 234556 http www canlii org fr qc qccs doc 201 4 201 4qccs951 2014qccs951 html Que Sup Ct 2014 03 12 62 Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors Composers and Publishers in Canada v AHTV 2014 CarswellNat 4808 2014 C B D 6 http www cb cda gc ca decisions 2014 application for arbitration sodrac artv pdf Cop Bd 2014 11 27 63 Syndicat des prof
134. ral November 2 2012 at para 63 If Facebook does not engage in the protected acts whose price the tariff sets it does not have to pay the tariff Facebook would have the Board determine that it does not engage in these protected acts as a finding of fact the Board declines to do so as this is an issue for another forum Section 68 2 Effect of fixing royalties An equitable remuneration to be paid only to eligible makers and performers Re Sound v Fitness Industry Council of Canada 120 C P R 4th 287 F C A 2014 02 24 Evans J 95 Third subparagraph 68 2 a i provides that a tariff applies only in respect of performers and makers of recordings eligible for equitable remuneration under section 20 The purpose of this provision is to ensure that royalties are not collected on behalf of non eligible recordings not as Re Sound argues that royalties must be paid in respect of all eligible recordings 100 do not find subparagraph 68 2 a i to be helpful in supporting the Board s decision agree with the Board that this paragraph does ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC i not require a collective society to collect royalties for all eligible recordings pe
135. rd at paragraphs 22 and 25 22 Our goal is to certify a tariff that is both fair and relevant If the tariff rate is too low and does not include the appropriate provisions users will simply execute side agreements with CBRA the collective society and ignore the tariff 25 In its decision of May 25 2012 on Re Sound s Tariff 5 the Board stated that it is recommended to determine if signing parties to the agreements can represent the interests of all prospective users and if comments and arguments made by former parties and non parties have been addressed Fn3 Re Sound Tariff 5 A to G Use of Recorded Music to Accompany Live Events 2008 2012 25 May ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 2012 Copyright Board Decisionat para 10 As a prospective norm of general application a tariff imposes obligations on absent users As such it is important to consider the interests of absent users that will be affected by the certified tariff According to the record the majority of non commercial media monitors have entered into an agreement with CBRA They should represent the opinions of potential users Fn4 The 2006 2008 non commercial media monitoring tariff was broadened to incl
136. re attentive du jugement permet de comprendre que l emploi de cette expression par la juge r sulte d une confusion lexicale Fn 8 Le vocable qu utilise la juge est un emprunt de l anglais l art 2 des d finitions puisque ce terme n est pas d fini en francais qui y utilise le mot recueil comme traduction de collective work Mais dans le contexte de cette affaire il semble clair que la juge ne pouvait avoir pr sent l esprit une uvre se qualifiant comme recueil Il s agit plut t d une ceuvre de collaboration dont la d finition est Oeuvre ex cut e par la collaboration de deux ou plusieurs auteurs et dans laquelle la part cr e par l un n est pas distincte de celle cr e par l autre ou les autres d nu e de cons quence Il s agit manifestement ici d une uvre de collaboration et c est ce que d crit la juge Lorsque en raison de sa collaboration la juge a qualifi l appelant d auteur il est possible qu elle se soit m prise sur certains l ments de preuve vers s au dossier N anmoins la question en est une de fait sans impact sur le dispositif du jugement et il n est pas d montr que la d termination de la juge est entach e d une erreur manifeste et d terminante la question n a donc pas tre r examin e ici Section 2 Definition of work of joint authorship The input of the authors must be substantial and not trivial Atlantic Canada Regional Council of Carpenters Millwrights and A
137. report and those readily found on the Internet Arendse s stated that all reports use a standardized form of language but what can be seen in his assessment report is beyond just a matter of standard language Again as indicated the court accepts the findings and opinion of Mr Vormbaum Section 13 Ownership of copyright Copyright ownership may be inferred from the relation between the parties irrespective of any writing but fortunately the case is in appeal Roulottes Prolite inc v Lasant 2014 CarswellQue 10221 Que Sup Ct 2014 10 03 Caron J in appeal ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 19 La deuxi me facture Fn6 Pi ce P 6 a t mise le 20 mai 2004 et cette fois ci on y indique Conception d un site Web 400 00 20 Le total de la facture s l ve 570 et au bas de la facture tout comme on le constate sur les autres factures il y est pr cis Ce recu confirme votre achat de produit et de service 30 C est donc huit ans apr s la cr ation du site Web que James r alise que Lasant se comporte comme propri taire du site Web Le Tribunal rappelle qu aucun document n a t chang entre les parties quant au fonctionnement du site Web et les seuls documents chang s sont les factures mises par l entreprise de Lasant et les informations concernant le contenu du site Web MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite
138. rformed in public in connection with specified activities It merely stipulates that tariffs may apply only to performers and makers of sound recordings eligible under section 20 that is the maker of the recording was a citizen or permanent resident of Canada or a Rome Convention country at the time of the first fixation or all the fixations done for the recording occurred in Canada or a Rome Convention country Section 68 2 Effect of fixing royalties The Copyright Board is responsible for certifying the tariffs presented by the collective societes Canadian Artists Representation Le Front des artistes canadiens CARFAC v National Gallery of Canada NGC 121 C P R 4th 1 S C C 2014 05 14 Rothstein J reversing 2013 CarswellNat 507 F C A 2013 03 04 which was reversing 2012 CarswellNat 4332 C A P P R T 2012 02 16 4 Copyrights assigned or exclusively licensed to the collective society must comply with the Copyright Act requirement that such assignments or exclusive licences be in writing and signed by the copyright holder or his or her agent s 13 4 Collective societies may set tariffs for the use of such copyrights ss 70 1 and 70 13 The Copyright Board is responsible for certifying these tariffs s 70 15 Section 70 15 Homologation Tariffs must be fair and relevant Collective Administration in Relations of Rights Under Sections 3 15 18 and 2 2014 CarswellNat 2978 Cop Bd 2014 08 08 the Boa
139. rk There is no originality in mere numercial codes Denturist Group of Ontario v Denturist Association of Canada 2014 CarswellNat 4191 F C 2014 10 16 Manson J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 64 In order for copyrights to be valid an author must have produced an original work that required his or her skill and judgment to create MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada 2004 SCC 13 CanLll 2004 1 SCR 339 at para 16 CCH The requisite levels of skill and judgment must meet the low criteria of not being so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise and exhibit some intellectual effort on the part of the author CCH at paras 16 33 34 75 do not find that there is sufficient originality or skill and judgment to justify copyright subsisting in mere five digit numerical codes and or the functional descriptions of the denturist services associated with those codes e Section 2 Definition of infringing copy Infringement of a copyright work is a valid ground of opposition to the registration of a trade mark but copy will have to be proven dm drogerie markt GmbH Co KG v 911979 Alberta Ltd 2014 Cars
140. roadcasting is the same That value is best achieved by attaching the ancillary use to the main one Accordingly the royalties should be proportional to the relative audience Fn 24 Supra note 5 SOCAN Re Sound CBC Radio Tariff 2006 2011 8 July 2011 Copyright Board Decsion at paras 118 120 This is in contrast with the American approach which treats radio simulcasting as a separate product 17 USC 114 d 1 CFR 380 3 a 1 82 We agree that portability has value The ability to stream music over mobile devices increases the attractiveness of music streaming This is also true of most forms of music listening Radio sets and CD players were not always portable Music royalty rates did not increase when portable devices emerged or when they became commonplace Consequently portability cannot of itself justify higher royalties Section 68 Board to consider proposed tariffs and objections It is open to the parties to negotiate an agreement outside a Tariff Re Sound No Tariff 8 Non interactive and semi interactive webcasts 2009 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1577 Cop Bd 2014 05 16 ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 90 Third we agree with the Objectors that the possible effects that any rate imbalance between interactive and other forms of webcasting may have on the market is a matter better pursued by the labels in the free market using the exclusive reproduction right 103 We disagree with the Objectors about
141. s a prima facie case of copyright infringement In this regard the Mark features a round shaped tree bordered by a square shaped element The Opponent s mark on the other hand features a more triangular shaped tree combined with a check mark shape both of which are shown in a bold regular style in black against a white background The Opponent s mark also includes the large and prominent letters FSC 31 As am not satisfied that the evidence supports a prima facie case of copyright infringement this ground of opposition fails Section 2 Definition of infringing copy Infringement of a copyright work is a valid ground of opposition to the registration of a trade mark but copy will have to be proven General Motors LLC v Wang 123 C P R 4th 139 Opp Bd 2014 06 11 L Reynolds 16 The second ground of opposition which has been raised under section 30 i of the Act is based on an allegation that the Applicant could not have been satisfied that it was entitled to use the Mark at the time of the filing of the application as the design component of the Mark is an identical copy of a work that is the subject of copyright registration No 1090977 and its use would therefore be in violation of the Copyright Act RSC 1985 c C 42 The Opponent asserts that this issue has already been decided by the Board in Chery Automobile Co v Wang 2013 TMOB 104 T M Opp Bd 17 Non compliance with section 30 i can be found where a pr
142. s since it rendered its decision In my view learning the basis of a tribunal s decision when the decision is published is not for this purpose a change in circumstances since the decision was made 87 Second tribunals generally have implied jurisdiction to correct breaches of the duty of fairness by reopening a decision Posluns v Toronto Stock Exchange 1968 S C R 330 at 340 and more generally Chandler v Alberta Association of Architects 1989 2 S C R 848 and see Canadian Recording Industry Association v Canada Attorney General 2006 FCA 336 Copyright Board s reconsideration cured any prior breach of the duty of procedural fairness 88 However even if section 66 52 is not exhaustive of the Board s power to reopen a final decision it was not incumbent on Re Sound in this case to request a reconsideration before applying for judicial review Re Sound could not have raised before the Board its other two grounds of review namely the Board s error of law in reducing the repertoire to recordings for which the performers or makers had authorized it to act for them and the unreasonably low royalties in Tariff 6 B e Section 66 52 Variation of decisions When its decision is rendered the Board is functus and cannot re open the file otherwise to correct clerical errors Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters v Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors Composers and Publishers in Canada
143. ssion or on consent The Canadian public can access the webpage and have it transmitted back to Canada This is exactly the evidence the Pliantiff Daniel Davydiuk provided the Court Section 34 Copyright civil remedies The burden to prove the infringement lays upon the plaintiff Point du jour aviation It e v Simard 2014 QCCQ 13560 Que Ct 2014 12 15 Chalifour J 6 Celui qui fait une r clamation a le fardeau de prouver selon la pr pond rance des probabilit s le bien fond de ses pr tentions 9 Tenant compte de la preuve contradictoire le demandeur ne s est pas d charg de son fardeau de preuve Section 35 Liability for infringement Copyright infringement may overide the right to privacy but the Court may intervene to ensure minimal invasion of this right ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 67 Voltage Pictures v Doe 119 C P R 4th 232 F C 2014 02 20 Alto Prothonotary 30 These sections of the Copyright Act s 35 and 38 1 provide a complete code for the recovery of damages for copyright infringement Voltage argues that it has demonstrated a bona fide case of infringement and is entitled to pursue the alleged infringers for dam
144. t ce partir du mois de d cembre 2007 22 Aucune preuve de Mariage Qu bec ne contredit cette entente 23 Cons quemment le Tribunal conclut que M Ahern conserve son droit d auteur sur les photographies prises entre 2007 et 2009 la demande de Mariage Qu bec pour toute utilisation autre que le magazine qu elle publie Section 13 Ownership of copyright Class action for copyright infringement may be appropriate but any settlement agreement must be fair to all class members Waldman v Thomson Reuters Canada Limited 120 C P R 4th 127 Ont Sup Ct 2014 03 04 Perell J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 95 however do not find that the Settlement Agreement is substantively circumstantially or institutionally fair to Class Members In this regard agree with the general sentiment of the objectors to the Settlement that the Settlement Agreement brings the administration of justice and class actions into disrepute because a the Settlement is more beneficial to Class Counsel than it is to the Class Members and b in its practical effect the Settlement expropriates the Class Members property rights in exchange for a charitable donation from Thomson 96 The case at bar is not like Robertson v Thomson Canada Ltd 2009 O J No 2650 S C J where Justice Cullity approved a settlement in a copyright infringement class action In the Robertson case Thomson settled a copyright infringement a
145. t what this was why it was serious and warned not to continue with this practice The worker when referenced these documents stated that he did not want to fail yet he denied plagiarizing material He claimed that he only had looked at the dictionary denied copying from it and stated that he really was not involved in plagiarism 55 In addition to the Adjudicator s detailed memos pursuant to the voluminous LMR portion of the file also have reports from the service provider The May 27 2010 progress report described the worker s ongoing breach of the service provider s plagiarism policy The worker initially received a verbal warning on May 4 2010 after he attempted to take credit for writing sentences that had been ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC i copied directly from a dictionary The May 27 2010 report clearly indicates that the worker was told that this was not acceptable and the plagiarism policy was explained to him in some detail The worker apparently told his instructor that he understood the significance of this issue and that it would not be repeated Section 34 Copyright civil remedies The award of costs is for the Court s discret
146. tale celui qui se veut propri taire de l oeuvre d un autre qui lui est le cr ateur artistique de l ouvrage au sens des droits d auteur Section 13 Ownership of copyright The contractual provisions of An Act Respecting the Professional Status of Artists in the Visual Arts Arts and Crafts and Literature and Their Contracts with Promoters are of public order Vanasse v ditions du Grand Duc une division de Groupe ducalivres inc 2014 CarswellQue 8497 Que Sup Ct 2014 07 2 Messier J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 46 35 L article 42 de la Loi sur le statut professionnel des artistes des arts visuels des m tiers d art de la litt rature et sur leurs contrats avec les diffuseurs RLRQ c S 32 01 pr cise qu l exception des paragraphes 35 et 37 les autres de ce chapitre soit 30 41 sont d ordre public Les d bats ce sujet indiquent M Bri re M me si l artiste acceptait la non conformit il serait consid r comme inexistant en droit 36 Donc la Loi S 32 01 a un but de protection de l artiste qui s tend la protection des crivains d oeuvres scientifiques afin d inclure les paragraphes 30 42 aux avantages d un contr
147. the right to use an artistic work remains with the copyright holder 24 The above interpretation causes no conflict with the Copyright Acts provisions regarding collective societies As counsel for CARFAC RAAV acknowledged at the oral hearing minimum fees for existing works do not apply to or bind collective societies such as SODRAC Collective societies have the power to determine tariffs for the works in which they hold the copyright subject to the approval of the Copyright Board However the SAA Status of the Artist Act S C 1992 c 33 and the Tribunal precedent are clear and none of the parties to this appeal disagree scale agreements do not bind collective societies The SAA only governs the professional relations between federal governmental producers as defined by that Act and artists insofar as they choose to retain their copyrights 25 Artists therefore have two options when dealing with federal governmental producers for the use of their existing works One option is to assign or license their copyright to a collective society or appoint that society as their authorized agent In that case tariffs set under the Copyright Act and not the SAA and any scale agreements for their sector will apply to the works The other option is to deal directly with the producer in which case they will be bound by any applicable SAA scale agreements Within this option artists may either accept the minimum fees terms and conditions set o
148. the statutory scheme for the collective administration of the right to equitable remuneration a complex and technical matter that the Act entrusts almost exclusively to the Board compare Canadian Private Copying Collective v Canadian Storage Media Alliance 2004 FCA 424 247 D L R 4th 103 at para 110 MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC Section 2 Definition of collective society Collective societies must either operate a licensing scheme for a repertoire or collect and distribute royalties payable under the Copyright Act Canadian Artists Representation Le Front des artistes canadiens CARFAC v National Gallery of Canada NGC 121 C P R 4th 1 S C C 2014 05 14 Rothstein J reversing 2013 CarswellNat 507 F C A 2013 03 04 which was reversing 2012 CarswellNat 4332 C A P P R T 2012 02 16 3 The Copyright Act contains several provisions that are relevant to the present appeal Section 2 defines a collective society sometimes referred to as a copyright collective as a society association or corporation that carries on the business of collective administration of copyright for the benefit of artists among others who assign grant a licence or otherwise authorize the society
149. uch of the time and effort spent on the motion was useful at trial and how much was thrown away 26 Counsel for Faas submits that if no costs are awarded to Faas under Rule 37 09 3 it was in any case reasonable to seek them MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC ka given the case law thereunder that suggests that costs to the responding party are the rule not the exception agree with that submission Coloroso may have been justified in seeking the injunction in the first instance but once the hard fought motion was withdrawn Faas was justified in at least requesting costs Section 34 Copyright civil remedies What are the connecting factors for a Canadian court to have jurisdiction Davydiuk v Internet Archive Canada 2014 CarswellNat 4162 F C 2014 10 06 McVeigh J 32 find that Internet Archive did reach into Canada to the Intercan website when they requested the web pages Whether it was automated or not does not affect my finding The action of following a link or requesting pages as described by Internet Archive requires Internet Archive to reach out to the Canadian servers that subsequently transmit back to the United States The request and return transmission is not done with permi
150. ude municipal governments as potential tariff users However the records indicate that no municipal governments are currently users of the non commercial tariff Therefore we do not think that their non representation in the current proceedings is an issue Media Monitoring 2006 2007 2008 20 June 2008 Copyright Board Decisionat para 8 Section 70 13 Filing of proposed tariffs Tariffs are prospective Tariffs must take into account the interests of the parties as well as those of the users whether they have participated or not to the hearing Media Monitoring 2011 2016 Re 2014 CarswellNat 2978 Cop Bd 2014 08 02 25 In its decision of May 25 2012 on Re Sound s Tariff 5 the Board stated that it is recommended to determine if signing parties to the agreements can represent the interests of all prospective users and if comments and arguments made by former parties and non parties have been addressed Fn 3 Re Sound Tariff 5 A to G Use of Recorded Music to Accompany Live Events 2008 2012 25 May 2012 Copyright Board Decision at para 10 As a prospective norm of general application a tariff imposes obligations on absent users As such it is important to consider the interests of absent users that will be affected by the certified tariff According to the record the majority of non commercial media monitors have entered into an agreement with CBRA They should represent the opinions of potential users Fn4 The 2006 2008 non c
151. ue le recours en violation de droit d auteur peut tre introduit par le titulaire du droit d auteur ou par quiconque poss de un droit un titre ou un int r t acquis par cession ou concession consentie par crit par le titulaire Dans ce dernier cas le recours sera exerc dans toute l tendue du droit titre ou int r t en cause Section 42 Offences and punishment Even in copyright matters sentencing must be proportionate R v Strowbridge 2014 CarswellNfld 30 N L C A 2014 02 04 Hoegg J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 43 Federal Crown counsel argued that the trial judge employed the step up principle in sentencing Mr Strowbridge saying that Mr Strowbridge was initially treated leniently by the Courts with fines and probation then was graduated to a conditional sentence before being sentenced on these charges Counsel argued that given Mr Strowbridge s persistence in committing financially motivated crimes the sentencing judge in this case logically raised his sentence for his continuing criminal activity to the next level that being a custodial sentence 44 This argument was cogently presented and has certain merit However account must be taken of the marginal and unsophisticated nature of Mr Strowbridge s offences it is those offences for which Mr Strowbridge is being sentenced While it is so that the aggravating factors of Mr Strowbridge s case weigh against a lenient MO
152. ut in the scale agreements and model contracts or they can attempt to negotiate higher fees or more favourable terms Section 13 Ownership of copyright The provisions of subsection 13 2 must be interpreted restrictively an infographer is not a photographer Flansberry Kapture Design v 6548890 Canada inc Turbo Marketing 2014 CarswellQue 11833 Que Ct 2014 06 01 Lapointe J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 68 Le procureur de la demanderesse reconventionnelle a consacr beaucoup d efforts en plaidoirie dresser un parall le entre le r le moderne de l infographiste et celui jadis jou par le photographe qui manipulait planches et n gatifs Cette approche privil gierait sa cliente lui conf rant le r le de celui qui commande une ceuvre un MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC photographe contre r mun ration comme pr vu l article 13 2 L d a 69 Avec gards le Tribunal ne peut assimiler les travaux en question de la photographie Les dispositions relatives la photographie command e par un tiers sont une exception au principe de l article 13 1 L d a en faveur du cr ateur Ce r gime d exception doit tre interpr t restrictivement Lapierre Desmarais
153. uters Canada Limited 120 C P R 4th 127 238 A C W S 3d 303 56 C P C 7th 81 2014 CarswellOnt 2674 2014 ONSC 1288 238 A C W S 3d 303 2014 O J 1049 http canlii ca en on onsc doc 201 4 201 40nsc1288 201 4onsc1288 html Ont Sup Ct 2014 03 04 74 Wanless v Mayfair Music Publications Inc 2014 CarswellOnt 12291 2014 ONSC 4806 244 A C W S 3d 817 2014 OJ 4179 http www canlii org en on onsc doc 201 4 20 140nsc4806 20 140nsc4806 html Ont Sup Ct 2014 09 08 Now a section by section analysis of those 2014 Canadian cases Section 1 Short title There is a presumption that statutes are not in conflict Canadian Artists Representation Le Front des artistes canadiens CARFAC v National Gallery of Canada NGC 121 C P R 4th 1 S C C 2014 05 14 Rothstein J reversing 2013 CarswellNat 507 F C A 2013 03 04 reversing 2012 CarswellNat 4332 C A P P R T 2012 02 16 21 In drafting the SAA Status of the Artist Act S C 1992 c 33 Parliament is presumed to have knowledge of the Copyright Act and to have intended that the two statutes not conflict R Sullivan ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC ii Sullivan on the Construction
154. uteur ant rieures la date de signature de la cession nunc pro tunc 29 Or vu la jurisprudence contradictoire en mati re de cessions de droit d auteur nunc pro tunc il serait pr matur de mettre fin au recours de G l ce stade ci sans lui avoir permis de fournir d l ments de preuve quant aux circonstances entourant la soi disant cession verbale de juin 2009 et quant aux intentions du c dant Gestion Innomax Lt e cette date Section 13 Ownership of copyright Copyright law should not be used as a trap for the unwarry Pokora v 9064 0723 Qu bec inc 2014 QCCQ 5697 Que Ct Small Claims 2014 05 14 Chicoine J ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 11 CONSIDERANT QUE si tels droit d auteur ou de copyright peuvent exister en faveur d un photographe d j pay pour la prise des photos encore e t il fallu que le demandeur les r serve explicitement ou tout le moins qu il en convienne avec son co contractant lors de leur convention initiale Section 13 Ownership of copyright Even in favour of a collective society an assignement or an exclusive lience must be i in writing and ii signed by the copyright owner or his represe
155. wellNat 1300 2014 CarswellNat 1301 Opp Bd 2014 03 12 C Tremblay 38 turn to the second prong of the ground of opposition based on allegations that the use of the Mark is in violation of the Opponent s copyright existing in labels shown in print outs attached to the statement of opposition 39 have found that paragraph 6 and Exhibit F of the Gallivan affidavit constitute inadmissible hearsay Further the Opponent did not make any submissions about the second prong of the ground of opposition Thus conclude that the Opponent has failed to make out a prima facie case of copyright infringement see E Remy Martin amp Co S A v Magnet Trading Corp HK Ltd 1988 23 C P R 3d 242 T M Opp Bd Section 2 Definition of infringing Independent creation warants a finding of non infringement Geophysical Service Incorporated v Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petrolium Board 2014 CarswellNat 2186 F C 2014 05 09 Annis J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 32 Given the limited contribution of the applicant s data to Figure 5 5 and its extensive manipulation and reworking by the Board with the overwhelming majority of the data being provided from other MONTREAL QUEBEC 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 000
156. where there are advertent wrongful acts that are so malicious and outrageous that they are deserving of punishment on their own See Keays v Honda Canada Inc 2008 2 S C R 362 at para 62 17 In my view on the specific facts of this case including the important role of deterrence as a factor in assessing damages in copyright cases statutory damages are sufficient without awarding an additional amount for punitive damages 18 In considering the appropriate amount to award for damages note that there is no information respecting the Defendant s sales volumes or the amount of profit generated by the infringing activity In addition there is no clear evidence that any infringements continued after the injunction granted by R Smith J in 2012 Profit improperly gained through copyright infringement and deliberate defiance of court orders can be aggravating factors in assessing damages Section 38 1 Statutory damages Statutory damages are an alternative to real damages Bad faith concealment of the activities or of defendant s identity refusal to discontinue infringing acts are factors to be taken into account in assessing statutoy damages Mitchell Repair Information Company v Wayne Long 2014 CarswellNat 2195 F C 2014 06 11 Annis J ROBIC LLP www robic ca info robic com 5 The plaintiff requests an order awarding it 20 000 in statutory damages pursuant to section 38 1 of the Copyright Act instead
157. would appear that large parts of the QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL VLTS written by the defendant Wayne Ardendse and submitted to KeSystems by Shaun Hendricks has been copied verbatim from information available on the Internet The fact that so much of the manual has been copied form copyrighted material makes the valuation of the quality manual as prepared by Wayne Arendse a pointless exercise as it is the considered opinion of KeSystems that this work has been plagiarized and is of no commercial value whatsoever and use of this manual in any marketing or proposal activities by Hendricks could have exposed him and or his venture to ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 48 significant legal costs and potentially ruinous damage to the reputation of himself and his business 19 The court questions the necessity of a 33 800 quality assessment system When it boils down to it this court finds that the cost far exceed what was truly required The price was way out of whack and there are serious questions surrounding the validity of the Arendse s work This was not only outlined in the Vormbaum report but became quite apparent in a simple read of the comparisons between the Arendse s
158. x 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC Lachance v Productions Marie Eykel inc 2014 CarswellQue 637 Que C A 2014 01 30 the Court confirming 2012 CarswellQue 5028 Que Sup Ct 2012 03 15 11 Sur le moyen d appel principal l appelant invite la Cour a faire une lecture restrictive de l article 13 3 de la LDA du seul fait qu il s agirait d une d rogation la r gle g n rale dict e l article 13 1 qui accorde la possession d une uvre son auteur Sans n cessairement partager tous les motifs de la juge de premi re instance la Cour est d avis qu en l esp ce elle a correctement appliqu les conditions n cessaires l application de l article 13 3 au regard de la preuve administr e En effet l employeur est titulaire du droit d auteur dans l oeuvre de son employ lorsque les conditions suivantes sont satisfaites 1 une oeuvre est cr e dans le cadre d un contrat d emploi 2 pareille oeuvre est cr e par l employ dans l exercice de cet emploi et 3 il n y a pas une stipulation l effet contraire Fn 5 Normand Tamaro Le droit d auteur Fondements et principes Montr al Presses de l Universit de Montr al 1994 p 157 Canadian Copyright Act Annotated Hugues G Richard et al diteurs vol 2 Carswell Toronto feuille mobile janvier 2014 pp 12 13 C est donc bon droit que la juge a not Fn 6 Jugement entrepris paragr 46 50 que la preuve d montre
159. y an act or omission done by another contrary to the provisions of the Act section 57 is specific in being directed to expungement of entries on the register such as a registration of a trade mark section 53 2 must be broadly construed to be directed to any other act or omission done by another person as may be contemplated by the Act 28 From this jurisprudence conclude the provisions of the Trade Marks Act must be construed in a manner which promotes access to the Act a determination as to who is a person interested must be done on a case by case basis a person interested must demonstrate a reasonable apprehension that a commercial interest that it has or may have may be affected e the threshold for determining whether a person is a person interested is low ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC Section 57 Registration of assignment or licence A certificate could be amended by the Court to reflect co ownership of the copyright Kennedy v Ruminski 2014 CarswellNat 1842 F C 2014 05 30 Phelan J 29 The technical libraries to the extent that they can now be identified having been created before employment are outside ownership in
160. y use that should be dealt with at the same time as the main use Public Performance of Sound Hecordings He He Sound No Tariff 8 Non interactive and semi interactive webcasts 2009 2012 2014 CarswellNat 1577Cop Bd 2014 05 16 72 In our view the Internet simulcast of a radio station s over the air signal is a textbook example of an ancillary use that should be dealt with at the same time as the main use The value per listener for simulcasting and for over the air broadcasting is the same That value is best achieved by attaching the ancillary use to the main one Accordingly the royalties should be proportional to the relative audience Fn24 Supra note 5 SOCAN Re Sound CBC Radio Tariff 2006 2011 8 July 2011 Copyright Board Decision at paras 118 120 This is in contrast with the American approach which treats radio simulcasting as a separate product 17 USC 114 d 1 CFR 380 3 a 1 ROBIC LLP MONTREAL QUEBEC www robic ca 1001 Square Victoria Bloc E 8 Floor 2828 Laurier Boulevard Tower 1 Suite 925 info robic com Montreal Quebec Canada H2Z 2B7 Quebec Quebec Canada G1V 0B9 Tel 1 514 987 6242 Fax 1 514 845 7874 Tel 1 418 653 1888 Fax 1 418 653 0006 ROBIC 31 Section 3 Copyright in works Infringement involves the reproduction of an important part of the protected work Hayward Industries inc v quipements de piscine Carvin inc 2014 CarswellQue 5143 Que Sup Ct 204 05 27 Morr

pdf

Contents

Download Pdf Manuals

Related Search

Related Contents