Canadian copyright law

There are various comparable qualities among Canadian and American copyright, for instance, the general walks in the application strategy. Regardless, every so often Canadian lawyer and clients make wrong assumptions about US copyright laws that can essentially influence a copyright case. Besides, some US lawyers and clients erroneously acknowledge more resemblance between Canadian laws and US than truly exists. The Canadian copyright law is important in today’s day in age because it helps ensure

using Napster, sharing whatever MP3 songs they have already downloaded or stored. At any time, thousands of people are online, sharing hundreds of thousands of songs, many of which are technically illegal to download without the permission of the copyright holders. [1] This led to a lawsuit filed by the Recording Industry Association of America, with the rock group Metallica as its frontman. In this case, several issues were brought up, one of which was the right of the creator of the music to control

In the case of The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright) vs. York University, I believe that the plaintiff, Access Copyright, will not be successful in their lawsuit against the defendant, York University. Access Copyright is a non-profit agency that represents writers and publishers by collecting and distributing royalty fees on their behalf. Although this is a “non-profit” organization, Access Copyright does still charge administration fees for their services and enforces a business

paintings and other pictures have been protected by copyright law. Procedurally generated art can produce works that mimic a drawing, painting or photograph, but there is a complication in defining the work as an algorithm or a creative work. Copyright does not extend to algorithms, so the questions follows: Is procedurally generated art simply an algorithm that should be treated as such, or is it a creative work that should be covered by copyright law? Procedurally generated content in general is considered

a diamond-shaped spinning trophy for which it owned two copyright registrations. Discount Trophy is one of Crown’s competitors, and it sold a trophy that was substantially similar to Crown’s Spin Trophy. Crown requested that Discount discontinue the sale of the alleged copy, and when Discount refused, Crown filed suit in the Southern District of New York. Legal and Ethical Issues of the Case: In order to prevail on a claim of copyright infringement, a

comes a serious problem with the convenience of the easy accessibility to get the music resources, it caused the problems of indiscriminate use and pirated copyright. In the music industry, the key legal issues are the concept of copyright and fair use. Island Records base their legal argument on the code of copyright. Copyright laws help protect the creative works of the writers and other artists from the commercial

publisher, the composer or songwriter will assign the copyrights of their production. In return the company will then licence out the rights and help monitor where the composition is used and then in turn will collect royalties and then send them to the original producers. The copyrights owned and administered by publishing companies are one of the most important forms of intellectual property in the music industry, the other being the copyright on a master recording, which is normally owned by a

Music copyright is the right to exclusively reproduce original music or works of an individual or group of musical creators. This right is granted by the Australian Law. This gives the writer a legal control of his or her original work, meaning, the subject can dictate how it should be used and distributed. The music author therefore has the right to take legal action upon anyone who uses the work without permission. (Christie 2012 np) Copyright infringement on the other hand is violation of this

Due to how abusable current copyright laws are, they must be reformed to prevent copyright trolling. According to Matthew Sag, “The essence of trolling is that the plaintiff is more focused on the business of litigation than on selling a product or service or licensing their IP to third parties to sell a product or a service” (“Copyright Trolling, An Empirical Study” page 4). Copyright trolls seek to acquire their income from suing others on copyright violations, rather than continually creating

Those of us who care about continuing the copyright tradition that regards public access to information as the principal goal of the law are faced with the hard task of searching for and exploring middle-ground scenarios wherein author/publisher interests in receiving compensation can be balanced with user/library interests in having access to information on fair and reasonable terms. Finding and implementing such a balance is all the more challenging in view of the messianic fervor that the Green