Copyright User Rights

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascale Chapdelaine
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Law ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Protection Measures ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
Personal Property ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Impact

This book explores the scope of copyright user rights through the lens of property, copyright, and contract law. It proposes a taxonomy and hierarchy of copyright user rights that makes a distinction between user property, user rights, and user privileges. The book looks at user rights from an international law and multijurisdictional perspective (including the European Union, United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, and Australia) with a particular focus on Canada, given the significant amount of jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada on copyright user rights. Unlike other works that look at copyright user rights through concepts of public law and policy, this book explores user rights through concepts of private law (personal property, goods, services, sales, licences) and copyright law (exceptions to copyright infringement such as fair dealing and fair use, the first sale or exhaustion doctrine, and the impact of technological protection measures on how users experience copyright works). The book develops a pluralistic theory of copyright user rights that recognizes their diversity and myriad ways users experience copyright works, while emphasizing the importance and role of copyright users within copyright law. The book calls for the re-evaluation of the dichotomy between tangibility and intangibility and for greater cohesion between copyright law and traditional concepts of private law.

scholarly journals Debunking the Fair Use vs. Fair Dealing Myth: Have We Had Fair Use All Along?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Katz
Keyword(s):  
Fair Use ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
First Century ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
Canadian Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Application Adaptation ◽  
General Standard

According to conventional wisdom, a fundamental difference exists between the American fair use doctrine and the Canadian (or Commonwealth) fair dealing doctrine: while American fair use can apply potentially to any purpose, Canadian fair dealing could only apply to those purposes enumerated in the statute. Accordingly, fair dealing cannot apply to dealings for other purposes even if they would otherwise be fair. This conventional wisdom is false. When the UK Parliament codified the doctrine of fair use a century ago and enacted the fair dealing provision, it had no intention to restrict or limit its application, adaptation and adjustment by the courts. The UK Parliament (and that of Canada ten years later) sought to codify a principle, an open, flexible, and general standard, not precise rules, and had no intention to prevent its application to purposes beyond those specifically mentioned in the statute. Unfortunately, the English courts, in a series of early post-codification failed to recognize this point have sentenced fair dealing to a hundred years of stagnation. Fortunately, at the turn of the twenty-first century the Supreme Court of Canada declined to follow that restrictive path. The Canadian Parliament's decision to explicitly recognize additional purposes in 2012 and add other specific exceptions moves Canadian law in the same direction. The Court's rulings and Parliament's action have entrenched fair dealing and provided a necessary correction that allows fair dealing to resume the role it was always supposed to play. However, if conventional wisdom is correct, some uses, present or future, are still categorically excluded. This is not a recipe for progress. In a legal environment that outlaws novel ways of using, reusing and disseminating works outright, fewer new forms of expression will emerge. Fortunately, there is no serious indication that this is what Parliament intended when it legislated fair dealing, and there are very good reasons to challenge the view that it did have such intentions. This chapter, adapted from an earlier piece written in 2013, explains why and includes additional evidence to that discussed in the earlier piece. It debunks the Fair Use vs. Fair Dealing Myth and shows that an open, flexible, and general fair dealing is already here. It always has been.

scholarly journals Fair Use 2.0: The Rebirth of Fair Dealing in Canada

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Katz
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Major Alteration

This Chapter recounts the history of fair use and fair dealing. It traces the shared common law origins of fair use and fair dealing in English and American copyright law, and shows that the enactment of the 1911 UK Copyright Act - the basis for current copyright laws of most Commonwealth jurisdictions - was not designed to cause any major alteration in the common law of fair dealing. The historical record shows that the distinction between US-style open-ended fair use and fair dealing as a myth: the codification of fair dealing in 1911 was not designed to limit its application to the enumerated purposes included in the statute.The question of whether the list of enumerated purposes is exhaustive or, instead, illustrative of a broader principle has never been put squarely before the courts, let alone the higher courts, and certainly not in Canada. Therefore, the question of whether fair dealing in Canada can apply to purposes that are not explicitly mentioned in the Copyright Act is an open one, and as this Chapter shows, can and should be answered affirmatively. Doing so will not transplant a foreign legal concept. Rather, it will reunite present copyright doctrine with its rich and historic roots that were latent but never discarded. Embracing an open-ended fair dealing is the only logical application of the Supreme Court of Canada latest decisions and Parliament’s action, and the only interpretation of the Act that can be internally, historically, and constitutionally coherent.

A Copyright Snapshot: the Impact of New Copyright Legislation on Information Professionals

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 233-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Stannard
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
Information Professionals ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThis article, written by Emily Stannard, is based on her presentation at the 2015 BIALL Annual Conference. The article discusses the recent statutory changes to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and reflects on the impact it has had on information professionals, especially those working within the cultural heritage and education sectors. The wording of the legislation is considered in detail with the aid of case law to provide context where necessary, particularly with reference to fair dealing provisions. Developments within the Digital Single Market of the European Union also have a significant impact on national copyright law, and it is imperative that information professionals remain informed about upcoming copyright initiatives as well as making sense of the new statutory instruments.

Do regulations protect workers from occupational exposures to carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) agents in France?

2017 ◽  
Vol 75 (5) ◽  
pp. 389-397
Author(s):  
Nathalie Havet ◽  
Alexis Penot ◽  
Morgane Plantier ◽  
Barbara Charbotel ◽  
Magali Morelle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Occupational Exposure ◽  
Occupational Exposures ◽  
International Agency ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Protection Measures ◽  
Limit Value ◽  
Logistic Regressions ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveThis article explores the impact of regulations on the implementation of collective protections in France to occupational exposure to carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) agents.MethodsIndividual data from the French national cross-sectional survey of occupational hazards conducted in 2010 were analysed. We investigated whether stricter regulations and longer exposures were associated with higher level of collective protection using multivariate logistic regressions.ResultsGeneral ventilation, for which effect is limited as collective protection for CMR products, was present in 19% of situations involving CMR agents while isolation chambers, the most effective form of protection, were only very rarely implemented. Multilevel logistic regressions show that exposure situations to products classified as category 1 or 2 by the European Union do not have a higher probability of benefiting from a collective protection measures. Exposures to products with a Binding Occupational Exposure Limit Value selectively benefited from a better level of protection. Exposures to agents entered on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) list of proven or probable carcinogens benefited more from effective collective protections than products suspected to be carcinogens but not yet classified by IARC.ConclusionsThese results suggest that the dissemination of evaluations of carcinogens by the IARC translate into improved protective measures even though the IARC classification has no mandatory impact on regulations.

The concept of human dignity in the case-law of the Supreme Court of Canada on Charter Equality Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 118-137
Author(s):  
Tatiana Vasilieva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Equality Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Additional Burden ◽  
The Impact

This article explores the evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to the application of the concept of human dignity in constitutional equality cases. Traditionally, in human rights cases, this concept serves only to strengthen the argument, to show that the violation affects the person’s intrinsic worth. It is only in Canada and in South Africa that there is experience in applying the concept as a criterion for identifying discrimination. In 1999, in Law v. Canada, the Supreme Court recognized the purpose of Article 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 to be the protection of human dignity and stated that discrimination must be established based on assessment of the impact of a program or law on human dignity. However, in 2008, in R. v. Kapp, the Court noted that the application of the concept of human dignity creates difficulties and places an additional burden of prove on the plaintiff. It is no coincidence that victims of discrimination have preferred to seek protection before human rights tribunals and commissions, where the dignity-based test is not used. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of the concept of human dignity as a criterion for identifying discrimination. The unsuccessful experience of applying the concept of human dignity as legal test has demonstrated that not every theoretically correct legal construction is effective in adjudication.

Relevance of EU Copyright Law to (Future) Non-EU Member States

2019 ◽  
pp. 173-198
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
Eu Copyright Law ◽  
Eu Directives ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

This chapter discusses the impact of CJEU copyright case law on national copyright regimes, even beyond the wording of EU directives as transposed into national legal systems. To this end, it focuses on the UK and, following a discussion of what immediate changes the departure from the EU and the EEA (Brexit) would have (also with regard to issues of exhaustion), it explores to what extent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has changed UK copyright law. EU decisions have had an impact in areas such as: copyright subsistence, subject matter categorization, primary/accessory liability, standard of infringement, exceptions and limitations, and enforcement (with particular regard to website blocking jurisprudence). Overall, this chapter shows the legacy of CJEU case law, and how pervasive the impact of such case law is.

1. The Institutions of Employment Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Astra Emir
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Employment Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Industrial Training ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Low Pay

This chapter explains the organisation and functions of the following institutions of employment law: the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal; the Supreme Court, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS); the Certification Office; the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC); industrial training boards; the Equality and Human Rights Commission; the Health and Safety Executive; the Health and Work Advisory and Assessment Service; and the Low Pay Commission. It also discusses the impact of the EU on UK employment law and the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for employment law, and mentions the effect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

2. Copyright

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Press
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Substantial Part ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dramatic Works ◽  
Sound Recordings ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Musical Works

This chapter defines copyright as arising whenever a work is created under qualifying conditions. The Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) defines eight types of work that fall under two categories: works that must be original or ‘authorial works’, including literary works, dramatic works, musical works, and artistic works; and works that need not be original or ‘entrepreneurial works’: films, sound recordings, broadcasts, and the typographical arrangement of published editions. Copyright is infringed by copying or communicating the whole or a substantial part of a work—referred to as primary infringement—or by dealing in infringing copies of a work-referred to as secondary infringement. There are some major and many minor defences to copyright infringement including the ‘fair dealing’ defences and the public interest. Many aspects of copyright law have been harmonized by the European Union.

The Emergence and Development of Intellectual Property Law in Canada

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Gervais
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Complex Relationship ◽  
Canadian Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Important Trading Partner ◽  
The Impact

This chapter reviews the emergence of intellectual property (IP) norms in the areas of copyright, trademarks, patents, and designs in Canadian law from the early days of the Dominion’s complex relationship with British IP statutes and policy to a time of progressive independence from those statutes. It then reviews more recent changes, some of which were made to bring Canada’s laws into line with major international registration systems. Canada has also been ready to experiment with variations on IP themes. This is visible both in statutes and in decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada. The impact of the bijural nature of Canada’s legal system and its proximity to the United States are also discussed: Canada has integrated civil law notions into an edifice constructed mostly of common law bricks, and must confront demands from its most important trading partner in adapting its intellectual property framework.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document