Category Archives: Analysis

Federal Court clarifies that proper process for bringing a claim under the notice-and-notice regime—somewhat

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have seen an increase in litigation related to Canada’s notice-and-notice regime since it was added to the Copyright Act in 2012. Plaintiffs, generally the owners of copyright in films, have brought claims in Federal Court using various procedures. The Court recently released a decision offering guidance on the proper way to do so although there is still some uncertainty on this point.

Continue reading »

Mind the GAP: The PMPRB Changes Definition of GAP Medicines and Reduces Compliance Timeline

On January 15, 2021, the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (“PMPRB”) initiated a consultation on two proposed amendments to the new PMPRB Guidelines (“Guidelines”): (1) the definition of Gap medicines; and (2) the compliance timeline for Grandfathered and Gap medicines. 

According to the PMPRB, the two amendments were required due to the change in the coming-into-force date of the Regulations Amending the Patented Medicines Regulations (“Regulations”), which was pushed from January 1, 2021 to July 1, 2021.

And so, on March 17th, the PMPRB rendered its decision.

Continue reading »

Video Game Streamers: Free promotion, copyright infringement, or both?

Just before New Year, a controversial piece of US legislation tucked into a COVID-19 relief package had people who stream video gameplay online concerned that their livelihood was about to be criminalized. While a careful reading of the legislation reveals that the initial reaction was unwarranted and perhaps overblown, it does raise some interesting questions about the legal status of “streamers” and the interplay between game publishers and online video content creators.

Streamers use internet platforms such as Twitch and YouTube to broadcast videos of themselves to their fans and followers. Some of the most popular streamers will play videos games on camera during the streams. These gameplay videos are sometimes referred to a “Let’s Play” videos (as in, “Let’s Play Animal Crossing” or “Let’s Play Assassin’s Creed”). They earn revenue by offering subscriptions, accepting donations from fans, promoting products and services, and selling merchandise. The videos are live streamed so viewers can interact in real time with the streamer using a chat function. Many of the videos are also stored and can be viewed on-demand later.

Continue reading »

“Zombie” Privacy & IP Rights: Protecting the Rights to an Individual’s Image after Death: Part 1 of 2

Part 1: Privacy

James Dean could soon be starring in a new movie, over 60 years after his death! In what would be his fourth movie role, Dean’s image could be superimposed on a live actor for the film Finding Jack.  Animating deceased celebrities is not new however: a holographic image of deceased musician Tupac Shakur debuted at the CochellaTM music festival as far back as 2012.

Possible through the magic of computer technology, it would seem that deceased celebrities are as popular as ever and still command significant attention.  It is not surprising that movies and concerts are reaching back to long dead stars to “perform” for audiences. There will likely be no new scandals with these celebrities and they can be made to do whatever the creators have in mind without any “diva” pushback. While not everyone welcomes these developments, it will likely become more common as the technology continues to improve.

However, “employing” such “zombie” celebrities raises fascinating new legal issues, in particular in the areas of privacy law, and intellectual property law. 

Continue reading »

THIS time it’s final … The Canadian Intellectual Property Office Extends IP Deadlines Until AUGUST 31st

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) has extended its final extension of the deadlines under the Patent ActTrademarks Act and/or Industrial Design Act as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. As we reported previously, March 16th to August 21st were considered “designated days” under the applicable Canadian intellectual property legislation; the time to respond to certain CIPO actions therefore had been previously extended to August 24th.

Continue reading »