The 2020 Annotated Copyright Act

Author(s):
Normand Tamaro

What’s inside

Table of contents

Table of content not available at this time

Details and specs:


Its exclusive combination of statute and case law with in-depth analysis makes The 2020 Annotated Copyright Act ideal for use as your portable research tool, This work has become a fixture of copyright law practice in Canada in the 27 years since the first edition was published in 1992. 
 
New in this Edition
 
Updated statutes include:
  • Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, as amended by 2018, c. 27, ss. 243-246, 280-297
  • Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, as amended by 2018, c. 27, ss. 265 (Fr.), 266-268 [To come into force November 1, 2019.]; 2019, c. 29, ss. 133-135, 160, 161 [ss. 133-135 to come into force November 1, 2019.].
New case law includes: 
  • Dhillon v. Bernier, 2019 FC 573, 2019 CF 573, 2019 CarswellNat 1518 – There are special rules for subject matter other than works as defined in the Copyright Act. With regard to communication signals, only a “broadcaster” may have a copyright in a communication signal. Section 21 gives a broadcaster copyright in its communication signals including the compilation of all the programs, advertisements and other content that make up the signal transmitted by the broadcaster: Interbox Promotion Corp. c. 9012-4314 Québec Inc, 2003 FC 1254 (F.C.) at paragraph 18.
  • Glasz c. Choko, 2018 QCCS 5020, 2018 CarswellQue 10770 – Absent an employment contract or a written assignment, the Court held that the author and copyright holder of a movie production is the cameraman who filmed the movie and did the editing of his footage, not the person who suggested the production: “[51] Section 13(1) of the Act states that subject to the Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein. The term “author” is not defined in the Act. Commentators and courts recognize that the author is the person who exercised his skill and judgment to express an idea or to fix it in material form...”
  • Young v. Thakur, 2019 FC 835, 2019 CarswellNat 2971 – “The Applicants point to Attorney General of Canada v Rundle, 2014 ONSC 2136, 119 CPR (4th) 225 [Rundle] and Microsoft Corporation to support their submission that the maximum amount of $20,000 within the statutory range should be awarded because the Respondents did not cease after receipt of a cease and desist letter. The Applicants did not offer any analysis of the cases cited or point to other jurisprudence to guide the assessment of statutory damages...” 
  • Glasz c. Choko, 2018 QCCS 5020, 2018 CarswellQue 10770 – There is no statutory requirement that specific language needs to be used, considering that the Court can characterize the contract as an assignment based implicitly on the contract itself and the evidence adduced before it. “[60] There is no specific language that needs to be employed to convey an assignment of copyright...In every situation, the Court analyzes the terms of the contract and determines whether exclusive copyright ownership was actually assigned.” [translation] [61] 

Publisher:
Carswell

Practice Area:
N/A

Jurisdiction:
General

Publication Date:
2019-12-19

Hardcover Specifications

Service #:
30836209

Sub #:
30836428

Pages:
N/A

Shelf Space:
N/A

Volume:
N/A

Anticip Unkeep Cost:
N/A

eBook Specifications

ISBN:
9780779890439