Innovation and technology conversations are almost always oriented toward what comes next, what lies ahead, what will disrupt, or what will transform. Intellectual property law sits at the centre of these forward-looking debates, shaping how innovation is protected, disrupted, and governed. Yet the conversation at the launch of , hosted recently by IP Osgoode, suggested a more compelling perspective: looking towards IP futures does more than help us anticipate change; it helps us see the present more clearly. ��Artificial intelligence, digital globalization, and shifting economic models are not only reshaping innovation—they are also illuminating the blind spots embedded within todays IP structures. These blind spots surface in unresolved questions about originality and human authorship, the erosion of local normative priorities within global trade flows, and the largely invisible human labour underlying IP and information technologies.

, co-editor of the volume, opened the event by emphasizing the importance of emerging scholars in shaping the vitality of IP research. Reynolds, alongside co-editors and , has brought together an impressive collection of 18 chapters by 23 authors who participated in the 2023 workshop hosted at UBC's Allard School of Law. The resulting volume spans five thematic areas: the future of international IP treaties; evolving questions in Canadian law and artificial intelligence (AI); the relationship between Indigenous legal traditions and colonial IP frameworks; the future of IP in a digital and global environment; and the ways in which IP law can both reinforce and mitigate inequality. Together, these themes underscore that IP law is not merely a technical regulatory tool, it is a place where economic priorities, social justice concerns, and cultural values converge. Viewed through a future-oriented lens, each of these domains reveals pressures already reshaping the doctrinal foundations of IP.

Originality, Human Authorship, and the Limits of Existing Doctrine

Innovation debates are oriented toward what comes next, and questions of authorship reveal how unprepared existing doctrines may be. The rapid rise of AI-generated content forces copyright law to confront assumptions long taken for granted: that creativity is human, that authorship is identifiable, and that originality reflects individual intellectual effort. In his presentation, “Protection of AI-Generated Images in Canadian Copyright Law,” examined whether such works can satisfy the originality requirement, suggesting that protection may arise only where users provide sufficiently detailed inputs and where AI systems faithfully execute those executions -conditions that are rarely satisfied in practice. Most users do not invest the level of skill and judgment required to craft detailed prompts, and the outputs of AI black box systems often deviate from what the user intended. Dr. Rei-Anderson illustrated this point by referencing models’ tendency to hallucinate when asked to produce precise outputs or maintain specific spatial relationships.

[*The image below is Chat-GPT's output when asked, “What would it look like if I looked outside an acoustic guitar?” The fingerboard, strings, bridge, and saddle are all incorrectly positioned.]

Recognizing the gaps between expressive intention and AI-generated outputs highlights a deeper theme: the originality doctrine may have to adapt as technologies evolve if copyright law is to preserve a normative commitment human intellectual effort.

Viewed through a future-oriented lens, this is not simply a novel doctrinal puzzle. It exposes a present blind spot. When outputs emerge from opaque systems blending prompts, training data, and algorithmic processes, authorship becomes diffuse and originality difficult to anchor. The debate over AI-generated works therefore reveals an existing tension: doctrines built around individual human creativity struggle to accommodate collaborative, machine-mediated forms of production. The future of authorship, in this sense, illuminates the fragility of its present foundations.  

Globalization and the Disappearance of Local Normative Priorities

’s presentation shifted the discussion to the tension between the territorial nature of IP law and private international law (PIL), a dynamic that reveals another blind spot within IP law: the erosion of local normative priorities. Territoriality in IP law, she noted, is not merely technical, rather, it represents a manifestation of a state’s sovereign authority to protect fundamental national policies, including freedom of expression, education, and access to knowledge. These policies reflect deeply embedded social and economic values, and IP law often serves as a vehicle for their expression.

However, territoriality increasingly conflicts with the goals of PIL, which seeks to reduce multi-jurisdictional litigation and improve efficiency across borders. Daniel introduced the concept of “ICE Bias” (Initiative, Choice, and Enforcement) to describe the systemic imbalance between right holders and users in cross-border disputes. Right holders typically initiate proceedings, select favorable forums, and possess stronger incentives to enforce judgments, while users are often limited to seeking declaratory relief.

This imbalance encourages strategic litigation, where rights holders obtain judgments in restrictive jurisdictions and attempt to enforce them globally. Through cases such as and ., Daniel illustrated how global injunctions risk undermining domestic policy decisions. Her concern reflects a broader question about the future of IP in a globalized environment: how can law remain responsive to local values while operating within transnational networks?

In this manner, globalization does not merely generate efficiency, it risks flattening normative diversity. When enforcement mechanisms privilege scalability and uniformity, local concerns can be overshadowed by global market interests. Daniel proposed the development of specialized IP forums to complement general PIL venues, thereby preserving territorial policy choices while managing cross-border disputes.

Labor Exploitation in AI Training Processes

While AI is often framed as an autonomous technological force, Professor Teshager Dagne redirected attention to the human labor embedded within AI systems, emphasizing that data labeling, preprocessing, and model training depend on workers in economically vulnerable regions whose contributions remail largely invisible within IP frameworks.

Drawing on research conducted in Uganda and Ethiopia, Dagne described environments resembling digital “sweatshops,” where workers labeled data behind laptops rather than operating sewing machines. Although copyright doctrine recognizes human skill and contribution, data-labeling labor often falls outside traditional authorship frameworks. Dagne suggested joint ownership as a potential remedy, but acknowledged doctrinal and practical barriers, particularly where workers have signed away rights. This gap reflects a broader policy deficiency and highlights the need for statutory reform.

Dagne’s intervention emphasizes the socio-economic values embedded within legal systems: IP law does not merely regulate innovation; it shapes the distribution of benefits and burdens. A future-oriented IP perspective highlights that fairness in IP cannot be assessed only at the level of ownership or protection, it must account for the full technological pipeline and the conditions under which knowledge and data are produced.

Seeing the Present Through IP Futures

The launch of Intellectual Property Futures: Exploring the Global Landscape of IP Law and Policy does more than anticipate technological change; it provides an opportunity to identify and critically examine the blind spots embedded within the contemporary IP legal landscape. Looking ahead, in other words, becomes a way of more clearly seeing the problems with the present – and this wide-ranging, open-access collection provides us with an excellent vantage point to do just that. ��

Xiang Zhang is a doctoral student at Osgoode Hall Law School and a Senior IP Osgoode Research Fellow, with a strong interest in advancing open-source and open access to knowledge.

Dominic Rochon is a 2L J.D. student at Osgoode Hall Law School and an IP Osgoode Research Fellow, with an interest in music, copyright, and user-generated content.

16 April 2026

The post Intellectual Property Futures: Exploring the Global Landscape of IP Law and Policy appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Ryan Abbott is Professor of Law and Health Sciences at the University of Surrey School of Law and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

The past few years have witnessed some astounding advances in artificial intelligence, with high profile breakthroughs, such as software now in use , , and . As AI continues to improve, it is going to take over an ever-increasing number of tasks that were once only performed by people. This is going to have profound consequences socially, economically, and legally.

explores the legal implications of AI stepping into the shoes of people and doing human sorts of tasks. It finds that laws written with people in mind often give an unintentional preference to either human or AI activity. In turn, this tends to result in negative and unintended outcomes. The Reasonable Robot proposes that the solution to this problem is for the law not to discriminate between AI and human behavior—a principle of AI legal neutrality. This will ultimately result in more benefits for people.

To illustrate, consider how the law taxes activity by a person and a machine differently. Take the example of the AI used in health care for diagnosis mentioned briefly above. The FDA authorized an autonomous that provides point of care assessment for certain eye diseases. If a hospital or medical group needs to hire a human eye doctor to evaluate emergency room patients, in addition to what they have to pay the doctor, they need to pay additional payroll taxes to the government based on the doctor’s wages. However, if the hospital or medical group can use the AI system instead of the human doctor, it does not have to pay any payroll taxes. As a result, if the person and the AI cost about the same and generate a similar level of productivity (often a complex, or at least not a 1:1, comparison), businesses will be incentivized to automate to save on taxes. In addition to avoiding payroll taxes, automation has other tax benefits, such as accelerated tax depreciation.

The gist of this is that the tax system is not neutral between human and AI activity, and the law pushes businesses to automate—even if it is only to save on taxes. The solution to this problem is to eliminate human-centric employment taxes to level the playing field. This will help ensure that businesses are only automating when it results in genuine efficiencies.

To take another example, AI has been generating creative and inventive output for years that, if that output had been made by a person, would be protected by intellectual property rights. However, the United States has not clarified whether a creative work made without a traditional human author, or an invention generated without a traditional human inventor, could receive copyright or patent protection. That is going to be a major problem if AI-generated works become a major source of commercially valuable creative content or socially valuable innovations, because it will mean that the right incentives will not be in place for people to make, use, and develop AI that can generate socially valuable outputs.

The Reasonable Robot argues that the solution to this problem is to ensure IP protection for AI-generated works, with the owner of the AI as the owner of the AI’s output. As with the tax solution above, this would level the playing field and allow businesses to generate creative output or innovate using either people or AI when one or the other (or both), is more effective.

This argument is being put into practice with (AIP) which involves a series of legal test cases brought in various jurisdictions to obtain protection for AI-generated inventions without a traditional human inventor. The AIP recently obtained the for an AI-generated invention in South Africa, as well as a holding that an AI-generated invention is patentable. Litigation is currently ongoing on these patents in the United States, United Kingdom, EPO (Europe), and Germany.

The post “The Reasonable Robot” tackles AI’s impact on the economy, intellectual property rights, and more appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The afternoon event was structured into three panel discussions -- titled "Copyright Scope and Management," "Fair Dealing," and "Technological and Copyright Neutrality" -- in which authors featured in the new book provided short presentations summarizing their findings and analysis on some aspect of the����- the series of five copyright decisions released in the summer of 2012 by the Supreme Court of Canada. The panels then proceeded to take questions from the audience.

While all three panels were informative and interesting, with��, fair dealing has resurged as a hot topic in Canada. The "Fair Dealing" panel, led by Michael Geist with �����Ի���, provided insight into how courts will likely treat fair dealing in future and how educational institutions may react to the decision. Before I discuss the panel’s treatment, a background overview of fair dealing in Canadian copyright law may be useful.

A Short History of Nearly Everything About Canadian Fair Dealing

The law of fair dealing () was clarified by the SCC in��. There the Supreme Court described fair dealing as a user right - "more properly understood as an integral part of the��Copyright Act��than simply a defence" (2004 SCC 13, para 48). The Court also laid down a non-exhaustive list of six factors that need to be evaluated to determine if a dealing was fair. This evaluation of fairness is part of a two-part test, the first being whether the dealing is for one of the allowable purposes listed in the��Act��(more on this later).

Questions relating to fair dealing appeared twice at the SCC in the 2012 Pentalogy, in �����Ի��� IPilogue coverage can be found�������Ի���.

In Access Copyright, the Court found in favour of the Alberta Education Board, saying that classroom copies made by teachers of excerpts from copyright protected material could be considered fair dealing for the allowable purposes of "research or private study", broadly construed. ��The court also determined that a teacher's purpose for copying could not be separated meaningfully from the purposes of the teacher's students. The teacher and her employer could therefore benefit as facilitating the fair dealing purpose of the students since it is the end user’s purpose that is relevant on the question of fairness.

������Bell, the SCC determined that providing 30- to 90-second previews of songs for customers via streaming was not an infringement of copyright and so not subject to a SOCAN royalty tariff. The Court stated that these previews could be considered as "research" on whether or not to purchase the whole song and, being fair in relation to that purpose, passed the second part of the��CCH Canada��test.

Both decisions have caused a number of IP lawyers to modify their previous conception of fair dealing in Canadian law.

Fair Use 2.0: The Rebirth of Fair Dealing in Canada: Ariel Katz’s Presentation

Has the shift in fair dealing as a result of the SCC's decisions in the Copyright Pentalogy��been a move into uncharted territory, or are we merely back on the course we were always meant to be on? Katz reiterated this point throughout his presentation. While����- the closely related cousin of fair dealing in Canada - provides an illustrative list of purposes by using the words "such as" before them in the U.S. legislation, section 29 of the��Canadian Act��lacks this wording. Most lawyers therefore believe that the list of activities in Canada is exhaustive rather than illustrative, on the expressio unius est exclusio alterius principle ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others").

Katz posits that such a reading insufficiently considers the legislative history of fair dealing, once a judge-made principle of equity in UK common law that was later enacted into the Copyright Act 1911 (UK) and carried forward into the Copyright Act 1924 (Can.). Lawyers involved in the drafting process at the time had strangely little to say about whether the enactment was intended to limit the scope of fair dealing in practice as previously understood. ��From a policy perspective, did or does it make sense to exclude certain areas of use categorically from this user right? Yet with the addition of the categories of parody and satire by the 2012, ��Canadian law will likely continue its restrictive approach, at apparent odds with the original intent of the 1911 and 1924 legislation.

Fairness Found: How Canada Quietly Shifted from Fair Dealing to Fair Use - Michael Geist’s Presentation

Michael Geists’s presentation following Katz's was aimed at showing that the restrictive approach to fair dealing would not apply in practice in the future since, after the Pentalogy, Canadians are living in a U.S.-style “fair use” world in all but name.

The Supreme Court’s approach of giving a large and liberal interpretations to the categories enumerated in the fair dealing sections of the��Canadian Act��means that the first part of the fair dealing test - whether the dealing is within the scope of the legislation or not - presents a very low legal hurdle to overcome. Most of the legwork will take place in the second part of the��CCH Canada��test through a consideration of the six “fairness” factors. The shift has occurred because: (1) the list of enumerated fair dealing purposes has grown with the 2012 amendments to the��Copyright Act��in 2012, and most activity should fit into one of the categories, broadly defined; (2) the Court in��Bell��confirmed CCH’s�� generous interpretation of the fair dealing purposes, so that most of the "analytical heavy-hitting" should occur when determining whether or not the dealing was fair; and (3) the Court has focused on the end user’s purpose, making it increasingly easier for the Courts to find that third party activities directed to that purpose equally qualified as fair dealings.

On this view, the concept of user rights has clearly expanded and the question arises how creators view this recalibration of the copyright balance.

Fair Dealing Practices in the Post-Secondary Eduction Sector after the Pentalogy - Samuel E. Trosow’s Presentation

Trosow's presentation was direct and to the point: now that the Courts have confirmed fair dealing rights, universities need to stop contracting out of the rights the legal system has granted them. According to Trosow, in 2010 (6 years after��the decision in��CCH), post-secondary schools were still not factoring fair dealing into their copyright licensing strategies. In 2013, after the Pentalogy, there seem to be few reasons for these institutions to hesitate. Trosow argued that licence agreements with Access Copyright should be terminated at the first available opportunity and that institutions should further develop their copyright practice guidelines to take advantage of their fair dealing rights.

Even with the SCC’s recent reinforcement of user rights in��Access Copyright�����Ի���Bell, post-secondary institutions seem wary of cancelling their licensing agreements with Access Copyright. Trosow stated that the main reasons for this behavior were: (1) institutional risk aversion, (2) overreaching by copyright owners and copyright collectives, and (3) general copyright literacy. Institutions need to make an effort to educate themselves and their staff on how to use materials appropriately to stay within their fair dealing rights . Practices should be developed in an open manner and should act as flexible and useful guidelines rather than rigid workplace rules. For Access Copyright licensing to continue, the collective will need to provide greater value to the institutions beyond what fair dealing provides them.

Reflections

Although perhaps difficult to implement at a book launch, there seemed little discussion on the possible ramifications of the aggressive expansion of fair dealing as a user right. Even in the question periods that followed each panel, only a few individuals raised arguments on the side of collectives and creators.

The Access Copyright��case undoubtedly represented a massive defeat for copyright collectives - organizations that exist to ensure that creators are paid fairly for the use of their works. If courts continue to interpret fair dealing as broadly as they have in recent years, creators may continue to see their piece of the pie shrink ever further. Whether this is or is not a good result, it is necessary for all angles of the problem to be considered if the proper balance in copyright law as described by the Court in�� is to be maintained.

Copyright collectives meanwhile have cause to be worried with what these Supreme Court decisions mean for their future and the creators they represent.�� The foundations of copyright law were not the only thing shaken after the Pentalogy decisions were released in 2012.

Adam Del Gobbo is the Content/Publication Editor of the IPilogue and a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook Up Fair Dealing appeared first on IPOsgoode.

This historic event reverberated in a number of domains.

These five judgments mark the final moments before a long anticipated major reform in Canada’s copyright law: on 12 July 2012, when the five judgments were released, the Copyright Modernization Act had been passed by Parliament but had not been declared in force.[6]

In addition to marking the end of one version of the Copyright Act, in the context of intellectual property development in Canada, the “pentalogy” instantly enormously multiplied the total jurisprudence from Canada’s highest court that bears on copyright. Indeed, between the time McLachlin J became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 2000 and the release of the pentalogy, there had only been five copyright judgments from the Court:[7] �ճ�é��������� v Galérie d’Art du Petit Champlain [�ճ�é���������],[8] CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada [CCH],[9] Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada v Canadian Association of Internet Providers [SOCAN v CAIP],[10] Robertson v Thomson Corp [Robertson],[11] and Euro-Excellence Inc. v Kraft Canada Inc. [Toblerone].[12] Taken together, these ten cases represent a greater volume of interest from the Supreme Court in copyright than has been evinced at any time since it became Canada’s final appeal court.[13] For example, in Ian Bushnell’s history of the Federal Court, spanning 1875 to 1992, there is mention of only one intellectual property case being appealed to the Supreme Court,[14] a trademark case, Benson & Hedges v St. Regis Tobacco Corporation.[15] Others did reach the Supreme Court but did not merit discussion in Bushnell’s history: for example, in copyright, on appeal from the Exchequer Court (predecessor to the Federal Court), the Supreme Court decided Cuisenaire v South West Imports Ltd in 1969—but consideration of copyright by the Supreme Court under previous Chief Justices has definitely been infrequent.[16] One reason for this relative paucity of copyright cases in the Supreme Court may be the strong contribution to intellectual property jurisprudence between 1964 and 1980, which is universally acknowledged as being made by Jackett CJ of the Federal Court.[17]

But, beyond the context of copyright jurisprudence, the release of these five copyright decisions together was a landmark in the history of Supreme Court jurisprudence in general. This chapter will focus on the historic copyright “pentalogy” but, rather than considering these judgments primarily in light of Canadian copyright jurisprudence— or, indeed, in light of intellectual property jurisprudence more broadly—the discussion will focus on these five judgments in the context of Canada’s Supreme Court jurisprudence generally...

The post The Context of the Supreme Court’s Copyright Cases appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In what is now dubbed the Supreme Court’s “copyright pentalogy”—five copyright judgments released concurrently by the Court in July 2012[1]—the unprecedented importance accorded by the Court to the principle of technological neutrality is clear; what remains unclear is precisely what “technological neutrality” means, why it matters, and whether or how it can (or should) ever be attained.

This chapter aims to critically assess the significance of the principle and its potential to guide the future development of copyright law and policy in Canada. In Part 2, I set out the various shades of meaning that can be attached to technological neutrality, first as a principle of sound regulation, and then as a principle of statutory interpretation by the courts. I review, in Part 3, the reasons delivered by the Justices in three of the five cases to examine the various and divergent ways in which the principle of technological neutrality was defined and rationalized by members of the Court. I proceed to explore the application of the principle and its role in resolving the legal issues before the Court, drawing connections between conceptualizations of the principle and its interpretive impact, and focusing on its capacity to support the extension and/or circumscription of owners’ and users’ rights.

In Part 4, I consider whether the role accorded to technological neutrality as a guiding principle is justifiable or appropriate in the context of Canadian copyright policy. Arguing that its justification is found in, and flows from, the concept of balance at the heart of the copyright system, I proceed to offer some thoughts on its potential significance in the future of Canadian copyright law and in light of the recent amendments to the Copyright Act.[2] Part 5 concludes that the new emphasis placed by the Court on technological neutrality as a guiding principle is an important and positive development for Canada’s copyright system. The caveat, however, is that the principle cannot perform this role effectively if conceived (or rhetorically invoked) as a limited principle of formal non-discrimination that merely justifies the extension of copyright’s reach. Rather, I argue, it must be conceived in a functional sense, shaping copyright norms to produce a substantively equivalent effect across technologies, with a view to preserving the copyright balance in the digital realm.

Featured here is the first part of a book chapter written by Carys Craig, Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. The full chapter is available for download . The book is entitled "The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law" edited by Michael Geist, and is available for purchase or download .

The post Technological Neutrality: (Pre)Serving the Purposes of Copyright Law appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The Copyright Pentalogy rocked the foundations of Canada’s media industries, and will have wide reaching repercussions for Canadian copyright law. The book, entitled “” is the first comprehensive scholarly analysis of the pentalogy. The text covers a range of topics, including the standard of review in the courts, the implications and evolution of fair dealing, technological neutrality, the scope of copyright and copyright collective management.

The book is edited by Prof. Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa and includes contributions from many of Canada’s leading copyright scholars, including IP Osgoode’s very own Prof. Giuseppina D’Agostino and Prof. Carys Craig. It is sure to be a must have resource for anyone interested in Canadian copyright law in the future.

Print copies are available from the and an open access PDF version is available as a .

The post New Book - The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The post "Copyright, Contracts, Creators – New Media, New Rules" now Available on Paperback appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Our own , Associate Professor and Member of IP Osgoode, has recently released a book on copyright that has already made a splash among legal circles.�� It is entitled, (Edward Elgar, 2011).

On , Jeremy Phillips, IP blogger and , and stated that "a great deal of bright, sparkling thinking on copyright is emanating from Canada at the moment, and this is just the latest example of it."

He goes on to comment on the publisher’s description of the book.�� He states that even though the publishers refrain from saying (once again) that this book will be useful to practitioners, "There is actually some significant discussion of case law, by the author and by those whom she cites, from which policy-oriented lawyers and judges can benefit."

Professor Phillips closes by recommending, "Buy it for a friend you enjoy discussing copyright with, read it together and you'll never be bored."

, Associate Professor at Osgoode, .�� Professor Sutherland’s focus was on a discussion that Professor Craig gave of the book:

Carys Craig riffed on the cover image of her book to convey something of its content. It’s a book that squarely takes aim at the dominant conception of copyright as private property. In it, she argues that this conception misrepresents authorship and the process of cultural creation in ways which, when translated into law, lead to the stifling rather than the stimulation of creativity and expression. She proposes instead a relational theory to underpin a copyright law that would better serve our social and cultural values. I haven’t done her presentation justice with that brief description. I tried to take careful notes but soon gave up as pretty much everything she said seemed worth writing down. Of course, this bodes very well for the book! Suffice it to say that it promises to be a most thought-provoking book and I’m very keen to read it.

We are very excited for Professor Craig and expect more positive reaction will be forthcoming on her contribution to the discourse on the nature of copyright law.

The post Rave Reviews for Professor Carys Craig appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The publication of the second edition of ’s is a welcome event. The first edition of this book, published in 1997,was a lucid and concise account of the three main areas of intellectual property law: copyright, trademarks and patents. The book’s conciseness did not detract from its value. Professor Vaver’s experience and depth of knowledge of the subject matter, combined with his talent for expressing himself with clarity and simplicity all contributed to a slim book that spoke figurative volumes.

The second edition of Intellectual Property Law can hardly be described as concise – it has 833 pages compared to the 348 pages of the first edition. Yet there is nothing flabby about this account of the law. The reality is that intellectual property in this post-industrial age has undergone significant changes and expansion. Entire new fields of technology which seemed like science fiction in 1997 are standard fare today. Biotechnology, nanotechnology, digitization, the internet, and mobile communications – to name just a few – have all presented new and often difficult challenges for intellectual property law systems.�� In addition the growing international dimensions of intellectual property law have also led to significant changes in law, policy and practice.�� The universe of intellectual property has expanded, and with it has Professor Vaver’s book.

The new edition adopts a structure similar to the original. A general introduction to intellectual property law is followed by main sections covering copyright, patent and trademark law. There is also a substantial chapter on the management and enforcement of rights. Each topic is addressed in a systematic way; headings and subheadings are used to guide the reader through different key points. The structure is logical, and although it distills the main areas of intellectual property law to their essence, the book is not a bare and descriptive text.�� Professor Vaver’s introduction speaks to the fundamental shifts and transformations in the field of intellectual property law. These include the pressure to expand intellectual property protection, the ongoing importance of intellectual property in the international trade arena, and the growing public engagement with IP issues. Professor Vaver makes his perspective clear here, and throughout the book. IP rights must be reconciled with other crucial social values:�� “the right of people to imitate others, to work, compete, talk, and write freely, and to nurture common cultures” (page 14).��For those who are new to the field of intellectual property law, it is important to understand how central Professor Vaver’s work has been to the maturing of intellectual property law as a serious academic field of study in Canada. Professor Vaver began his academic career in the early 1970’s in New Zealand before moving to the in the latter part of that decade.�� In 1985 he arrived at , where he taught IP and IT law for many years, and began to develop a body of serious scholarship in this area. At the time, he was one of only a handful of IP scholars in Canada. For the most part, Canadian law schools offered a course in IP law, if at all, as a practitioner-taught “trade” course. Professor Vaver’s first edition of Intellectual Property Law, and the book which followed shortly thereafter, were important books for IP in Canada. These books made IP law accessible and engaging to a new generation of law students, and they were cornerstones for the maturing intellectual property law scholarship in Canada. Professor Vaver’s academic leadership in this field eventually resulted in his move to the in 1998, as Director of its . ��In 2007 he transitioned to a new role as Emeritus Professor of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law at the University of Oxford. He also returned to Osgoode Hall Law School to add his considerable academic weight to that school’s new centre for intellectual property studies, . As Justice Rothstein observes in his preface to the second edition of Intellectual Property Law, “David Vaver is in the very top rank of the most highly respected experts in the field of intellectual property law” (page xxv of Preface).

There could hardly be a better text for a Canadian student of IP law. The second edition of Intellectual Property Law is comprehensive without being overwhelming. The book addresses the full range of issues: from the elements of each main area of intellectual property law, to constitutional concerns, issues of territoriality, international treaties, first nations issues and areas for law reform. While some of these issues are touched upon only briefly, the book is intended as a starting point and not an end point. Each chapter concludes with suggestions for further readings and the footnotes throughout reference both case law and academic writing.

Yet this book is not just for law students. Judges and practitioners will find it a useful reference tool and will value it for its clarity, comprehensiveness and insight. In addition, the book will be of use to the growing number of individuals not trained in law whose lives are touched by intellectual property law, as creators, users, policy makers, or entrepreneurs.�� As Vaver writes in his preface, “The aim is to make IP law and policy accessible to whoever wishes to know more about them, be they students, lawyers or members of the general public, particularly those who rely, whether they know it or not, on IP in their daily lives” (page xxvii of Preface).��This goal seems to be fully realized. Although heavier to lift, the second edition has not lost its accessibility to a very wide range of readers with a very diverse set of interests in intellectual property law.

The post Book Review - Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-Marks, 2nd Ed. appeared first on IPOsgoode.

’s , takes up where the first edition left off, providing a complete and informative review of intellectual property law in Canada. David Vaver is the Professor of IP Law at and a member of the .

In 1997, Vaver released the first edition, which was Canada’s first text that analyses all three of these fields in one volume. The first edition has been one of the most favoured texts on the subject, being a source of referral on Canadian intellectual property law by judges, policymakers, lawyers, academics and students both nationally and internationally. Given the fundamental changes seen in both domestic and international IP law over the last fifteen years, an updated version was in demand; the current edition not only takes into account these fundamental changes, but also embarks on the social, economic and technological environments in which intellectual property law operates. This text raises the bar previously set by the first edition, and will maintain its place as a cornerstone to the study of IP law in Canada.

The structure of the text is similar to its predecessor, but the contents are more in-depth, boasting a page count double that of the first. However, Vaver maintains the brief and non-technical language seen in the first edition, illustrating his main points in terms that are easy to comprehend for those that are new to the subject, yet detailed enough for those with a wealth of experience in the field. As noted by Justice Rothstein of the Supreme Court of Canada in the text’s foreword, “[h]is extensive expertise and experience in intellectual property law is made obvious by how he is able to reduce complex concepts to a coherent and readily understandable level” (page xxiv of Foreword). This separates Vaver’s text from many others in the field, as he approaches the subject in a manner that is more personable and easier to comprehend, balancing his insights and opinions on the state of the law with the key legal principles found in the subject areas.

The text opens with a Foreword written by Justice Marshall Rothstein of the Supreme Court of Canada, lauding the importance of intellectual property protection on the local and global stage, and praising Vaver’s discussions surrounding the current issues the subject faces today with the continual evolution of society. It is then divided into six chapters: an introduction outlining what IP is in Canada; a chapter each on copyright, patent and trade-mark law; one on management and enforcement of IP on both domestic and international levels; and, a conclusion outlining the current state of IP and how to address some of the current challenges facing the system in Canada and abroad. Vaver uses a mixture of primary and secondary sources throughout the text, referring to key jurisprudence and legislation that shapes the area of law, as well as texts and journal articles of his peers on the subject. Also, a list of further readings in both print and online form is provided for readers to learn about certain areas of the topic that may pique their interest. After the introductory chapter, a list of suggested blogs is made available by Vaver, thereby offering IP enthusiasts an avenue to receive up-to-date information on the state of the law on an almost instant basis. At the end of the text material is a glossary of key terms in the practice, showing once again that he has kept those new to the subject in mind in his draft. The book concludes with a Table of Cases and Index for reference to particular contents.

The introductory chapter tackles intellectual property as a whole in Canada. Vaver begins with an evolution of the state of the law in Canada, including mention of recent international influence on standardizing the subject globally. He then goes on to define the term "intellectual property", and justifies why it is treated differently from other forms of property as well as why it is so integral to today’s society and economy. Vaver introduces common features prominent in all forms of IP (territoriality, overlapping rights, and registration), as well as certain elements specific to IP in Canada (optional marking, Constitutional and Freedom of Expression issues). The introduction provides an all encompassing overview of the subject that serves as a springboard to the dialogue surrounding the specific areas of IP discussed in the subsequent chapters.

The next three chapters go on to discuss the specific areas of copyright, patents and trade-marks, respectively. For each subject, the chapter explores what is entitled to protection, criteria for protection, duration, owner and user rights, and title. Each chapter involves a mix of foundational jurisprudence and recent developments in the common law on both a national and international level. Vaver aims to compare and contrast the approaches taken in Canadian common law to those seen in other areas of the world, allowing readers a better understanding of what level of freedom and protection Canada provides with respect to its international counterparts.�� Throughout, there is an underlying theme of streamlining each area to meet the standards expressed by IP international bodies such as WIPO, and thereby eliminate major discrepancies between countries IP users face today in the global market.

The copyright section is the lengthiest chapter in the text at over 200 pages, as it covers a diverse range of protected media with differing rights and durations. At the end of the chapter, Vaver focuses on the differences between free use and commercial use at the end of the chapter, setting out the immunities available to free users for specific uses of the copyrighted material. He also maintains an eye to the future of copyright law in Canada given the developments of the (WPT) and (WPPT), which were almost introduced in in June 2010. According to Vaver, even though Bill C-32 was not passed due to the fall of the Harper Government in March 2011, it “nevertheless indicates the direction of current government policy” (page 56).

The next chapter, patents, focuses on the rise of patents on an international level, with the US, Europe, Japan, Korea and China accounting for almost three-quarters of applications to the (PCT). Vaver goes on to state that in 2009, Canada granted a total of 200 patents to developing global players India and China, but he expects this to change in the future as both continue to invest more in new technology with the hope of joining their Western counterparts in prominence. Similar to the copyright section, he differentiates between free use of patents and paid use of patents through licensing, explaining why certain users are exempt from the restrictions of patent protection and why others are not.

The fourth chapter covers trade-marks, stating that they differ from other forms of IP, as they possess more of an ‘industrial’ element as oppose to ‘intellectual.’ Vaver also comments on the criticisms surrounding the and questions surrounding the constitutionality of certain provisions; he goes on to say that “trade-mark laws are not there to ‘hamper free trade,’ unreasonably restrict people’s rights of free expression, or just further and protect traders’ interests in their branding decisions and strategies, which benefit only them. The laws are there to further and protect the public interest in a healthy functioning marketplace, which benefits all” (page 428, emphasis added). He ends the chapter discussing user rights, making note of Canada’s reluctance to adopting a broad leeway to infringement exemption seen internationally, opting for the same limited range of permissible activities listed in the 1953 Act.

After discussing each area of IP, Professor Vaver once again discusses them in unison in the fifth chapter on Management and Enforcement. IP operates in a free market, with owners having the ability to assign, sell, license, or split up IP rights as they please. The system is set up to maintain a flexible structure to accommodate the evolution of society’s communication, development and production methods. However, the system is not without restrictions, as certain requirements must be met when dealing with transferability in the form of assignments or licences. In Canada, IP management is rather low-maintenance, with obligations to pay maintenance fees, renew periodically and record title in national IP registries being the main elements to consider; going abroad with IP is much more of a complex task, as management requirements vary globally, with complexity in international deals arising due to lack of cohesion. The chapter goes on to discuss enforcement of IP, outlining the role of the courts on both national and international grounds and what remedies right-holders are entitled to.

Vaver ends the text with, to his own admission, a conclusion that least differs from that of the first edition. He discusses the current state of IP law and why it exists in the form it does today. Then, he asserts some of the drawbacks of the system, stating that it is far too technical and complex, as “the results [IP laws] produce hardly square with the way many ordinary, law-abiding citizens think and act” (page 668). These technicalities are set out in the preceding pages, surrounding drafting standards, social control, first nations, acceptable uses, and those specific to the copyright, patent and trade-mark systems. The text ends with a section titled “Rethinking Intellectual Property,” where Vaver offers that a zero-budgeting system should be applied by governments to IP systems to examine how to best meet a balance between the users and owners of IP. He outlines a series of broad questions that must be answered to create a system of laws that has a “coherent moral centre that the public can comprehend and accept” (page 689). The conclusion shows that Canada’s IP system is far from perfect, and even though minor tweaks have made it better, starting from scratch and re-examining its desired goals will lead to a system that makes all those a part of it happy. Although this seems unrealistic and unlikely to happen, Vaver identifies that the problems do not lie in the peripheral elements, but the main structure itself.

As with its previous edition, Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-marks, 2nd ed. stands as a leading authority on intellectual property law in Canada. David Vaver offers a complete and concise overview of the topic that will be useful to anyone that works with or has an interest in IP law in language that eliminates the complexity and technicality seen in the subject. This current edition takes into account recent developments of the law in the last 15 years on both a national and international level, providing expanded analysis on topics previously covered, as well as discussion on new ones. The text exemplifies that, although the field of IP has no doubt improved through recent decisions, there is still a lot of opportunity for it to improve, offering insight into what future changes may lie ahead. The text already looks to be a key resource on the subject, as it has already been cited by Justice Rothstein in the May 2011 trade-marks decision of . 2011 SCC 27, .�� The second edition deserves the high praise, recognition and relevance its predecessor has in the IP community.

The post Book Review - Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-marks, 2nd Ed. appeared first on IPOsgoode.