Mona Karimi is a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Intensive Program.

If you're a fan of Hip-Hop music, you might just find your favourite artist fighting to protect themselves from their own lyrics. Jay-Z, Meek Mill, Big Sean, others have joined forces to openly endorse the . New 91��ɫ Senators Brad Holyman and Jamaal Bailey drafted the legislation to amend the state's criminal procedure law to strictly limit the admissibility of a defendant's lyrics, videos, or other creative expressions as evidence. The bill argues that musical works being admitted as evidence against artists violates their . However, the issue's racial component prompted Hoylman and Bailey to take action. The Senators reasoned that seldomly do we see lyrics from other genres utilized as evidence in criminal courtrooms, but rap lyrics and videos have been used as evidence in hundreds of cases. States like California have taken a stronger stance on this issue with Gov. Gavin Newson recently signing the Decriminalizing Artistic Expressions Act, effectively restricting the use of rap lyrics in courtrooms.

If you thought this was a foreign practice in Canada, think again. Crown in Canada have also relied upon an accused person's artistic creations, unsurprisingly in the form of rap music, to establish guilt. In the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in , the Trial Judge permitted the accused's rap music to bolster the Crown's case for first-degree murder and devised a new method for admitting this type of evidence, which suffers from some flaws. The admission of rap lyrics (disproportionately more often than other genres) feeds into racial bias and perpetuates damaging racist stereotypes. In his article, "," University of Windsor Law Professor Tanovich offers a compelling case that when rap lyrics are used in court, their cultural and artistic context is stripped away and substituted with one of apparent legal relevance, which can then be distorted to reinforce racial preconceptions. The criminal justice system in Canada has long struggled with systematic anti-Black racism, and the establishment of practices and egregious bias against certain genres of music that are typically linked to Black culture only serves to exacerbate the problem. Rap lyrics’ admissibility doesn’t just sacrifice art for a quick conviction, but arguably enables a racially discriminatory and biased practice to flourish in the legal system.

Where the Crown can use a person's artistic expression as incriminating evidence, the system risks limiting such expression and clashes with the to foster and promote the enjoyment and production of artistic works and threatens growth in the Canadian music scene both domestically and internationally. Imagine how different your favourite Drake song would be if he had to remove every potentially incriminating lyric. It will be interesting see how the judicial system's particular focus on hip-hop affects how people make music and how these competing objectives, in two different areas of the law, will reconcile.

The post RAP MUSIC ON TRIAL: Artistic Expression or Confession of Guilt? When IP Meets Criminal Law appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

What did your look like this year? As music streaming services grow in popularity, more people have included them as part of their daily lives. On November 29th, The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) released its of its market study into music and music streaming. According to the report, streaming services are the primary method of music distribution for labels and artists, with 39 million active users and over 138 billion streams in the UK in 2021. Moreover, competition between music streaming services and the digitization of the market improved consumer outcomes greatly, though creators still had concerns about their earnings from streaming.

Falling subscription fees, benefits for emerging artists

Music streaming services have evolved to significantly benefit consumers in today's market. These services offer consumers access to an enormous catalogue of music, better audio quality, and new features, without the price tag. In fact, the report reveals that the price of music streaming plans dropped more than 20% between 2009 and 2021 because they did not keep up with inflation.

The music streaming market is also showing some positive results for creators, especially new artists. First, virtually anyone can share their music. Although the market is highly competitive, it has never been easier to create and record music and share it on streaming services. Secondly, deal options for creators are improving. Although creators do not necessarily need a label to share their music on streaming services, many of them are finding that they have more options in what type of deal they would prefer (for example, DIY distribution, A&L services, traditional record deals). Moreover, artists find that having an existing prominent following online helps them while negotiating a record deal. Major contracts with new artists for multi-track deals revealed more favourable terms for creators — an increase in average gross royalty rates, shorter minimum commitment periods and a reduction in the proportion of recordings owned by labels.

Average UK artist yearly streaming earnings from majors and average UK royalty rates. Source: CMA analysis of data from the majors.

Challenges call for broader policy debate, not competition intervention

Digitization has also presented some challenges. Market digitization has primarily limited competition to already popular artists — although streaming services offer a wide selection of music, consumer tastes tend to favour a small number of successful artists. Moreover, streaming allows both new and old music to reach new audiences, increasing competition as new music competes with older music for a share of streaming revenue.

Ultimately, the report concludes that these outcomes are not primarily caused by market competition and therefore, a competition intervention probably would not increase revenues for artists. Rather, the report calls for a broader policy debate, encouraging the government to consider further legislative and policy reforms for creator compensation in collaboration with DCMS Select Committee recommendations.

Labels are urged to provide more transparency to their artists about how streaming service earnings are calculated and how existing deals with streaming services will impact their current and future earnings. In addition, government and policymakers should examine options available to incentivize songwriting, such as determining a fair split between publishing and recording shares and exploring the licensing rates for music streaming. Future conversations revolving around these issues are critical, as the sustainability of the music streaming market depends on consumers and creators alike.

The post CMA Releases Report on Music Streaming Market appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

This past summer, Amazon made headlines when it announced an update that would make Alexa capable of , just after hearing under a minute of audio. While people are still unsure as to whether this is heartwarming or just plain creepy, AI continues to evolve, with recent developments showing its ability to not only mimic human speech but also singing.

AI-based audio technologies have been making waves worldwide. Last month, Google announced “”, which proposes “a new framework for audio generation that learns to generate realistic speech and piano music by listening to audio only”. More recently, , China’s leading music entertainment platform, demonstrated the influence of AI in music. According to Music Business Worldwide, the company has released over - one of the tracks surpassing 100 M streams. TME utilized a “patented voice synthesis technology” called “Lingyin Engine”, which the company claims can “quickly and vividly replicate singers’ voices to produce original songs of any style and language.” South Korea has been a strong player, with its most prominent AI-based audio start-up, . The company claims that its voice synthesis and real-time voice enhancement technology can create a hyper-realistic voice that is indistinguishable from real humans.

So far, these AI voice technologies have largely been publicized as an innovative way of and preserving the memories of lost loved ones. Nevertheless, companies will likely aggressively pursue these technologies for profit. In fact, according to NME, (record label of globally recognized boy band, BTS), which equates to about $44.6 million Canadian Dollars. last month, HYBE’s CEO confirmed that the company plans to “unveil new content and services to [its] fans by combining our content-creation capabilities with Supertone’s AI-based speaking and singing vocal synthesis technology.”

HYBE’s huge investment in Supertone starts to make a little more sense once we discover that the company’s “” in Q3 2022 was its Artist ‘Indirect-involvement’ revenues. BTS’s success suggests how more entertainment companies will follow HYBE’s footsteps to increase profits without the headache of coordinating any physical appearances of its artists.

The development of voice AI opens a plethora of legal questions to consider. These issues were highlighted more recently by the recent - who is given permission to use it and does the artist hold any rights to license their voice to third parties for use in other films? More specifically for , how do we determine who owns the copyright to the work? Does it make sense to look at the creators of the voice AI technologies themselves or at the source of the vocal data (the artist)? These questions clarify that the development of voice AI places our artists in a very vulnerable position — suggesting a much-needed intermission for this chaotic programme.

The post The Show Must Go On - AI Developments in Music appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Alice Xie is an IPilogue Writer and a 1L JD Candidate at Western University’s Faculty of Law.

Do you remember contemplating whether you liked a trending pop song enough to spend $4.99? With the rise of online streaming services like Spotify and YouTube over the last two decades, listening to music has arguably changed for the better. However, with the convenience of streaming music through these digital platforms, the music industry has also had to deal with a wide range of copyright issues, including online copyright infringement. A look at streaming giant Spotify’s recent significant copyright battles provides some insight into the issue of on online streaming platforms.

Spotify’s Recent Significant Battles

Spotify has encountered its fair share of copyright infringement lawsuits filed by music artists, record labels, and publishers. In 2015, guitarist David Bowery filed a lawsuit against Spotify USA, a Spotify subsidiary, for streaming songs without first , which are the standard payment for reproducing or distributing a song. Spotify settled the lawsuit with . In 2017, music publishing company Wixen also filed a against Spotify USA, seeking $1.6 billion. Wixen claimed that Spotify from its represented artists, which resulted in the artists and publishers not receiving royalties when customers streamed their work. Spotify and Wixen mutually agreed to in 2018. In 2020, two entertainment companies filed against Spotify and other streaming services for not receiving royalties for their streams. The issue of inadequate artist compensation is not unique to Spotify, but applies to all streaming services.

New Copyright Law: A Solution for Spotify

The relevant US copyright law is , which states that a person or entity seeking to distribute a musical work must first obtain a compulsory license. One can obtain a compulsory license by filing a notice of intention (“NOI”).�� In 2018, the US Congress passed a law called the (“MMA”), which seeks to alter the licensing system for the better and take charge of the compensation process. Title 1 of the MMA is especially relevant, as it establishes a for digital music providers. The blanket licensing system covers all musical works available for compulsory licensing, which means that streaming services will no longer need to file an NOI for each song or work. The MMA also established the Mechanical Licensing Collective (“MLC”), which administers the blanket licenses and more notably, maintains a containing information on the musical works and their copyright owners, if known. The law was set to .

Inadequate artist compensation may be partly explained by the difficulty of accurately identifying the rightsholders of each work, given the volume of music works. Digital service providers cannot locate the recipients of royalties. Lesser-known music artists are even more vulnerable to copyright infringements in this way. The MMA ideally solves this difficulty through the public database, which centralizes all information relating to musical works into one place. This provides parties like streaming services seeking compulsory licenses with a recognized source of rightsholders from which to draw. Additionally, the database validates artists’ possession over their works that will not be easily taken. If correctly implemented, the MMA can advance the collective goal of creating a digital music ecosystem where streaming services grow their platforms by legally acquiring distribution rights and artists, publishers, and record labels are rightfully compensated for their work. We may look to future copyright infringement cases to inform the �ѲѴ�’s effectiveness.

The post Could this music law help Spotify dodge future copyright infringement battles? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Anita Gogia is a IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear combined their talent with their love for the Netflix Original, Bridgerton, to create the 15-song “Unofficial Bridgerton Musical” album. Barlow and Bear went on to become viral sensations on social media and (2022 Best Musical Theatre Album) for their production.

On July 29^th 2022, Netflix the TikTok stars Barlow and Bear in the U.S. District Court in D.C. alleging in violation of 17 and . Netflix Barlow and Bear have benefited from their album’s false association with the Bridgerton brand. Netflix also the position that Barlow and Bear “” the elements of expression, dialogue, characters, and key plot points from Bridgerton.

Allegedly, in March 2021, when Barlow and Bear’s team asked Netflix for permission to record their album, Netflix the activity but said they wouldn’t “”. Per their , Netflix told Barlow and Bear that they would not authorize any live performances of the songs. Despite Netflix’s statements, in July 2022, Barlow and Bear held a sold-out show in New 91��ɫ with ticket prices ranging from $29-$149+. When hearing of the future live shows Barlow and Bear had planned, Netflix that would permit their shows, continued distribution of the album, and any further performances of the Bridgerton-inspired songs; but Barlow and Bear refused the licensing option.

Perhaps more important for Netflix is the promotion and success of their event “Queen’s Ball,” a Bridgerton held across multiple cities. Barlow and Bear’s live show would likely compete with the profits of the “Queen’s Ball.”

Barlow and Bear hold the position that their work is not liable for IP infringement because it is inherently “fan fiction.” Netflix has that “Barlow & Bear’s conduct began on social media, but stretches ‘fan fiction’ well past its breaking point.” Jane Quinn, author of the books of which Bridgerton is based has a difference between flattery through composing songs on TikTok and performing an album for commercial gain.

Barlow and Bear may use the “fan fiction” defence to claim their work is not an infringement based on fair use by proving the elements of fair use: the art is to the original show. Additionally, fan fiction must be for the creator. considered for establishing fair use are the purpose of the work created, nature of the work copied, measure of the material copied, and the impact on the market.

Ironically enough, if this case was filed in Bridgerton home territory, the UK, Barlow and Bear may attempt to use the defence of parody and pastiche. Netflix would likely win their case had it went to court based on ��a very similar case earlier this . ��In the of v. Only Fools The Dining Experience, the court ruled in favour of the creators of the original show because the nature of the “dining experience” was not so removed from the original show “” with it. Similar to Netflix, Shazam had their own musical for which sales could have been diverted by their audience choosing the dining experience instead. The court also found that that the defences of parody and/or pastiche did not apply.

TikTok has proven since the pandemic its unique power to make music, books, and tv/film over-night sensations. The Netflix v. Barlow and Bear case illustrates that companies may have to navigate between having its work become a positive viral sensation ��while still protecting their business interests and the content that its ��team has worked so hard to create.

The post Bridgerton Helps Navigate The Limits Of The Fan Fiction Defence In Intellectual Property appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Beyoncé's new album released on July 29, 2022, Renaissance, was the subject of a lot of backlash this month.��Her song “Heated” was “ableist” and “offensive” from listeners for using the word “spazz,” and many more were heated about “Energy,” interpolated Kelis’ 2003 R&B favourite, “Milkshake.”

On August 8, 2022, Kelis was how she felt about Beyoncé’s use of her song, stating that she was neither notified nor asked for permission before the sample was used in “Energy.”��Beyoncé fans Kelis for vocalizing this issue, saying that the singer should have just “been happy to be on the album,” but Kelis continued to voice the disrespect she felt by this act. In a viral Instagram story, she exclaimed, “from one artist to another, you should have the decency … to call reach out … a manager, an agent, anybody … even if you’re going to do it anyway.”

From a legal standpoint, lawyers have been clear that Beyoncé’s team their legal obligations. Artists only require permission from original composers and the record labels if they wish to borrow work, and unfortunately for Kelis, she didn’t fall within this category due to a contract she signed when she was nearly 20 years younger and did not fully understand. Kelis also that, back then, she was falsely promised that she would receive an equal split for the song.

Shortly after being publicly called out, Beyoncé the problematic sample from the song on versions available on several streaming platforms. She also removed the credits for Pharrell Williams and Chad Hugo, the creator and producer of “Milkshake” - a move to “manage ‘potential fallout’ from the public.” Kelis has no legal ground to stand on but her quarrel with Beyoncé illuminates a prominent and recurring issue in the music industry. Young artists continue to be pressured into signing contracts that they don’t fully understand, signing off rights that lead to catastrophic results later in their careers. We saw this with when she re-recorded some of her most famous albums in an attempt to own her own work. She stated, "This is what happens when you sign a deal at 15 to someone for whom the term ‘loyalty’ is clearly just a contractual concept. And when that man says, ‘Music has value,’ he means its value is beholden to men who had no part in creating it."

Moreover, contract with label and management company Love Renaissance was in the limelight late last year for its debilitating demands. The draft document harshly demanded that the singer “give up a chunk of all her non-musical earnings, even in areas like acting” and offered low advance payment and royalty rates in comparison to the standards then.

Often blinded by their ambition and pressured by the power imbalances with their labels, younger musicians need to ensure that they are securing their full rights at the time of music creation. This would require the artists to understand the individual actors that the musical composition would be split amongst, preferably a “split sheet,” where everybody’s contributions would be documented to avoid any confusion later down the road. Just a few minutes of extra due diligence in the recording room can spare an artist from losses decades into their career.

The post Giving off Bad Energy: “Milkshake” Sample Removed from Beyoncé’s Album “Renaissance” appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

According to , tensions are rising in the Livingston family as to who earns the royalties from the Academy Award-winning composer, Jay Livingston’s hit songs. ��These songs include such as Que Sera, Sera and theme songs for various television programs. Jay Livingston’s granddaughter, Tammy Livingston, launched a complaint against her mother Travilyn Livingston on July 17, 2022 and her publishing company, Jay Livingston Music Inc, for exercising copyright termination rights in several of her grandfather’s songs. , and how they may diverge what the artist originally intended. Copyright law may diverge from what the artist originally intended.

The Livingston Trust

Jay Livingston is known for co-writing several famous compositions, such as Que Sera, Sera, Bonanza and Mona Lisa. The composer died in 2001 and left a detailed estate plan to ensure that his family members get a share of royalties from his songs. The complaint states that Jay Livingston established trusts that took over 15 years to design and required the assistance of several estate planning attorneys.��The complex trust relationships were outlined in the .

All these elaborate plans, however, were thrown into disarray when Jay Livingston assigned his song rights to Travilyn Livingston's music publishing company, a year before creating the estate plans. According to of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17), authors and their statutory heirs can terminate copyright assignments and licenses made after 1978 as early as 35 years after they were first created. Travilyn Livingston exercised exactly that right and terminated the assignments to Jay Livingston Music 35 years later. As a result, any further royalty income will be out of Tammy Livingston's reach if the terminations are found to be valid.��

But what about what Jay Livingston wanted? Transfers by will are not subject to copyright termination, but since Jay assigned his copyrights to Tammy’s company, the termination rights are still exercisable.

The Deal with Copyright Termination

The US Copyright Law also defines the entitled to serve a termination notice. In the Livingston situation, since the artist’s spouse is deceased, the entire termination interest will be held by the artist’s children. Consequently, Travilyn Livingston, Jay Livingston's only living child, is the entitled heir and holds all of Jay's termination rights as well as all the recaptured copyrights, despite the composer’s clear intent for Tammy to receive her share.

The clause is meant to give authors the opportunity to regain rights in works they may have signed away when they had little bargaining power”as well as give the artist’s heirs “a second chance to exploit previously-assigned copyrights”. The Canadian copyright regime (the Copyright Act) similarly has section 14, , which excludes works made in the course of employment. However, the Livingston situation shows how the copyright termination statutes can be deliberately wielded to ruin detailed estate plans left by the artist.

To avoid similar situations, estate planners should plan ahead and include any copyright interests in a will or pour-over will to ensure that their strategic plans will be carried out after their passing. But with no will to be found, Tammy Livingston will just have to take her grandfather’s advice, whatever will be, will be.

The post Copyright Terminations Turn Over Estate Plans in the Livingston Family appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Chow is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Mariah Carey’s 1994 tune “All I Want For Christmas Is You” is one of the most iconic songs of the holiday season. It is the to be certified diamond, earning an estimated . With over 1.15 billion streams on Spotify alone, it would be hard to find someone unable to complete the lyrics after hearing the opening line, “I don't want a lot for Christmas…”

After 28 years on air, it might be a surprise to see a new copyright infringement lawsuit filed against the song in Louisiana on June 3. Novelty musician Andy Stone, also known as Vince Vance and the Valiants, against Carey, her co-writer, and Sony Music for copyright infringement, alleging that Carey knowingly infringed the rights to Vance’s . According to the lawsuit, Vance’s lawyers contacted Carey in April 2021 but were unable to come to any agreement regarding the rights and distribution of “All I Want For Christmas Is You.” Vance seeks $20 million dollars in damages for Carey’s failure to obtain permission to use Vance’s song to create a derivative work.

The US statute of limitations is from the last incidence of infringement, but due to the nature of the song’s annual return, the statute has not run. While the untimeliness is certainly odd, the lawsuit itself is even odder. The complaint does not explicitly allege that the two songs are substantially similar. Instead, states that Carey’s work “was designed to exploit [Vance’s] popularity and unique style, causing confusion as to the association” between the two artists. In doing so, Carey effectively sought to “capitalize on the goodwill and unique talent of [Vance] in an effort to obtain commercial advantage.” This argument is questionable considering that in the 90s, Carey sold over ﷟ 100 million albums and released 14 No. 1 singles compared to Vance’s song, which on �����������Dz�����’s Hot Country Singles and Tracks chart in 1994.

In order to prove that Carey’s song is an unlicensed derivative work, Vance will need to show that Carey’s work is a derivative work in the first place. Beyond the obvious fact that the two songs share a name, there appears to be little else supporting the vague allegations made in the lawsuit. Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans are . In fact, Vance’s song with the same title listed on the US Copyright Office’s Catalog. As a layperson, the two songs do not sound quite ��alike – one is an upbeat pop song, the other a country tune. Song lyrics do fall under the scope of copyright protection, but Christmas imagery such as stockings and mistletoe fall under the doctrine and cannot be protected due to the generic or universal nature of the song’s theme.

If the case does go to trial, only a jury can decide whether Carey’s song “resulted in confusing the public in addition to resulting in a substantial loss of income” to Vance.

The post A Very (Sum)Merry Christmas: Mariah Carey Faces Lawsuit Over “All I Want For Christmas Is You” appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Chow is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

I recently attended the Copyright Society of the USA’s event, , which featured IP Osgoode’s own Professor David Vaver alongside Professor Ysolde Gendreau from the University of Montreal in a discussion regarding the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in The unanimous decision written by Rowe J. clarified provisions of the , ruling that the Act only requires users to pay one royalty fee to stream works online as opposed to the two fees proposed by . You can read more about the decision in my summary published on the last week.

After brief introductions, the two speakers began by providing necessary context for the recent decision, including Parliament’s intentions behind the 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act. Prof. Gendreau first highlighted the three main copyrights enshrined in the Act’s : the right to produce or reproduce a work, to perform a work in public, and to publish the work. Section 3 includes several subsections which list various “examples” or “actions” encompassed within these rights – the relationships between the main rights and the subsections, Prof. Gendreau highlighted, were key questions before the court. The speakers also discussed a previous SCC decision that interpreted for the first time back in 2012; in a narrow 5-4 majority, held that the act of downloading a work did not amount to “communicating” said work to the public by telecommunication under section 3(1)(f) (para 4). Furthermore, “making available” is not a separate and compensable right, but rather part of the communication right encompassed within 3(1)(f).

Profs. Vaver and Gendreau briefly touched upon the use of international laws and treaties in interpreting domestic legislation, cautioning against cases of the “tail wagging the dog” in statutory interpretation. They emphasized the importance of interpreting domestic statute first, and international law () is a useful but secondary factor that provides context.

Interestingly, the speakers differed in their opinions about who the Copyright Act ultimately protects. While Prof. Vaver believed that the Act seeks to balance the rights of end users with original authors, Prof. Gendreau was of the belief that the ������’s protections lean towards the side of author. However, both noted that the SOCAN v ESA decision appears to freeze copyright as it is when the new technology is introduced, rather than growing alongside the subsequent adoption and growth. They both found that the SCC decision made a firm distinction between the acts of downloading and streaming, where in reality the line is blurred by a user’s ability to bookmark and cache online content.

What are your thoughts on the recent SOCAN v ESA decision? IP Osgoode invites you to share your thoughts in the comments section below.

The post Notes on CSUSA’s Breaking News Series: Supreme Court of Canada Rules on “Making Available” appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Chow is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On July 15, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) released its for the case Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (“SOCAN”) v. Entertainment Software Association (“ESA”). The unanimous decision written by Justice Rowe clarified provisions of the ��(the “A����”), ruling that the Act only requires users to pay one royalty fee to stream works online as opposed to the two fees proposed by .

Judicial History

In 2012, Parliament amended the Copyright Act to align copyright legislation with the , which Canada signed in 1997. Among the changes was the addition of section which was meant to clarify subsection ��defining “communication of a work or other subject‑matter to the public by telecommunication includes making it available to the public by telecommunication in a way that allows a member of the public to have access to it from a place and at a time individually chosen by that member of the public.”

As the central authority for the approval of tariffs, the held proceedings to determine the amount of royalties to be paid, receiving submissions from various groups on how to interpret the new sections of the Copyright Act. , a music licensing organization representing over 175,000 music creators, publishers and visual artists, argued that s. 2.4(1.1) required royalties to be paid whenever a copyrighted work was posted on the Internet for public access. The Copyright Board concurred, deeming that the act of making works available was in itself a separately protected and compensable activity. In effect, there would be two payable royalties: one for when the provider makes the work available online, and another for when a user actually streams or downloads a work.

The Federal Court of Appeal the Copyright Board’s decision, concluding that Parliament did not intend to introduce the two-royalties system for users accessing works online.

Key Takeaways

Although differing in the exact standard of review for the Copyright Board’s decision, the SCC unanimously dismissed SOCAN and Music Canada’s appeal. The SCC found that the Copyright Board and SOCAN’s interpretation of the Copyright Act’s new sections undermined the purpose of the Act itself. As per the principle of , “distributing functionally equivalent works through old or new technology should engage the same copyright interests […] what matters is what the user receives, not how the user receives it” absent parliamentary intent to the contrary. Section 2.4(1.1) merely clarifies that a work is “communicated” when it is made available or uploaded – as , streaming begins when the work was made available online and continues throughout to the end user’s accessing of the work. Thus, section 2.4(1.1) does not entitle authors to an additional “making available” royalty for making the work available online. It is merely part of the public performance right enshrined in section 3(1)(f).

The SCC also addressed two non-copyright specific issues relevant to the larger practice of law in Canada. Firstly, the SCC recognized a under to apply for instances of concurrent first instance jurisdiction, which allows both administrative bodies and courts to have this first instance jurisdiction over a legal issue in a statute (). Secondly, the Court reiterated the role international treaties play in statutory interpretation. Although WIPO’s Copyright Treaty is relevant to the statutory interpretation of the Act, it cannot “overwhelm clear legislative intent” (). The SCC found that the Copyright Board erred by privileging the Copyright Treaty and Canada’s signatory obligations over the domestic Copyright Act in its interpretation.

The Copyright Society of the USA will host a , breaking down the decision and exploring its broader implications for all stakeholders in the arenas of licensing, collective administration, and enforcement. The event features IP Osgoode’s own Professor David Vaver alongside Professor Ysolde Gendreau from the University of Montreal. It will be taking place virtually on Wednesday, August 3, 2022, at 12pm EST. Details and registration information can be found

Further reading:

Breakdown of SOCAN v ESA’s administrative law related holdings:

US Government’s Making Available Study:

The post SOCAN v ESA: Royalties in the Age of Streaming appeared first on IPOsgoode.