Photo Credit: Prof Pina D'Agostino

Prof Giuseppina D’Agostino is the Founder & Director of IP Osgoode, the IP Intensive Program, and the IP Innovation Clinic, the Editor-in-Chief for the IPilogue and the Intellectual Property Journal, and an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. She is also very proud of her new book!

Ěý

I am excited to share that I just published a collection on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the law, Leading Legal Disruption: Artificial Intelligence and a Toolkit for Lawyers and the Law (Thomson Reuters 2021). Co-edited with Dr. Aviv Gaon and Carole Piovesan, the book provides a provocative analysis on the emerging terrain of AI and how it interrogates various areas of the law. The book, that features a foreword from the Hon. Marshall Rothstein (formerly of the Supreme Court of Canada), is an international collaboration of thought leaders in AI, with contributors from Canada, the USA, Europe and Israel. Issues discussed include intellectual property, privacy, contract law, regulation, governance, ethics, business and more. Importantly, such issues merit a toolkit of practical and international perspectives as they are increasingly complex and ajurisdictional. ĚýĚý

In many ways this book is also a reflection of Osgoode’s strengths in AI. My co-editors, Dr. Aviv Gaon, Director at IDC Herzliya of Experiential Programs, is a PhD graduate (class of 2019) publishing several other books on AI and emerging technology, and Carole Piovesan (class of 2009) has co-founded her own firm, INQ Law. ĚýI am myself an LL. B graduate from Osgoode (class of 1999), eventually returned as faculty to found and run IP Osgoode and I am currently co-chairing the 91ŃÇÉ« AI & Society Task Force, among many other initiatives in this space.

I am particularly thankful to the Osgoode JD students who provided helpful research assistance: Elif Babaoglu, Daniel Joseph, Joseph Simile, Rachel Marcus, Christopher Tsuji, and Julianna Felendzer.

I am most grateful for the enthusiastic endorsements by Prof David Vaver (Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Osgoode; Emeritus Professor of Intellectual Property & Information Technology Law, University of Oxford), Prof Jane Ginsburg (Morton L. Janklow Professor of Literary and Artistic Property Law, Columbia University School of Law), Justice Michael Manson (Federal Court of Canada), and Dan Bereskin (Partner, Bereskin & Parr LLP) all which can be read on the back cover.

They say you can’t judge a book by its cover, but I particularly like this one, inspired by an AI and suggestive of our youth, our future ultimately grappling with AI and other emerging technology, that will iterate in every generation.

I look forward to hearing from you on your thoughts on the book (and the cover!). You may order your copyĚýhere.

The post Leading Legal Disruption: Artificial Intelligence and A Toolkit for Lawyers and the Law appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The primary issue in this case was whether the labeling on the wine was false, misleading, or deceptive contrary to and . This issue arose from the requirement in that “a clear indication of the country of origin shall be shown on the principal display panel of a wine.” Mactavish MJ’s key consideration was whether the “Made in Israel” label reasonably met these standards set out in the and .

Striking, however, is the absence of any discussion of which provides a regime for establishing protected geographical indications. Unlike the and , the addresses producer discretion in geographical indications and its relation to consumer understanding, the very issue Mactavish MJ is trying to resolve. Furthermore, as Binnie J pointed out in the is “consumer protection legislation”. It therefore does not suffer from the scope issues Mactavish MJ attributes to the and , the sources brought by the plaintiff. While the was properly not adjudicated, as it was not raised by the parties, it could have provided helpful guidance.

The regime prescribed in the focuses on the question of consumer understanding of geographical rather than political boundaries. While it leaves ample room for discretion in this regard, the repeatedly references “the territory, or the region or locality of a territory, in which the wine … is identified as originating.” Therefore, a product falling outside of a specified political boundary, but still within the region or locality of such a “territory” could, by law, be indicated as originating from the territory. In other words, a wine produced in the Israeli region could properly be labeled as “Made in Israel” without being misleading.

The question is therefore reframed from whether the West Bank is part of the State of Israel, to whether it is within the region of Israel. This approach allows the producer to separate the politically charged foreign policy issues that Mactavish MJ refers to as “profound”, “difficult”, “intractable”, “deeply-felt” and “sensitive” from their requirement to inform the consumer. The reasonable person’s understanding of a region is still a matter in question, but the approach of focusing on this understanding, rather than a legal or political definition of the area restores the concerned laws to their purpose of consumer protection.

. If the case proceeds, perhaps the will yet still shed some light on whether wines made in the West Bank will be allowed to be sold in Canada labeled as “Made in Israel”.

Written by Jared Sues, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Jared is an IP Osgoode IPilogue Editor and Innovation Clinic Coordinator

Ěý

The post Wine From … Israel? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The English Premier League requested that internet providers reveal the name of an unknown person who infringed their copyright through online streaming of football games (known as soccer in North America). The unknown individual managed a website – LiveFooty – where he streamed live sporting events. On his website, he wrote: “Hi all! I have created this site, as my personal aim, to be able to watch LIVE football/soccer, basketball matches, etc, without having to pay a cent! Now you can enjoy this too. With LiveFooty, you can watch all the interesting sporting events FREE”

Streaming on the Internet, whether on-demand or live, has become a fundamental channel for communication, sharing of information and as a supplement to traditional downloading. Despite these social advantages, streaming creates serious legal problems. It can amount to an infringement of several of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, such as the right to communicate the work to the public, and the right to reproduce the work. Despite this, Judge Agmon-Gonen rejected the Premier League’s request and declared that the streaming in this case was lawful and did not infringe copyright, because it did not comply with the statutory definition of broadcasting, and the streaming of live sporting events to the public has a social goal. This brought her to re-balance copyright and declare that users, as opposed to the situation before the enactment of the 2007 Copyright Act, have rights.

On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned the District Court’s decision. The Court held that, although the actual sporting event is not protected by copyright, the production and shooting of such an event is an original work. Streaming is an act of broadcasting within the meaning of section 14 of the Copyright Act. The Court rejected the users’ rights doctrine noting that: “The legal language used in the 2007 Act gives no indication that the legislature’s goal was to recreate the existing balance in copyright and transform defences to rights”. The Court held that streaming of soccer is an infringement and our John Doe cannot find rescue in the fair use doctrine.

Although the Supreme Court was unanimous with regards to the case for infringement, it was divided with regards to revealing the identity of the infringer. The majority agreed that, under the current law, the identity of the person cannot be disclosed. Consequently, the Premier League won only a partial victory. This partial happiness cannot take the Premier League to the bank, because John Doe is still John Doe.

Although I think the Court was right in finding that streaming of a live sporting event is not innocent, I cannot agree with the reasons for rejecting the users’ rights doctrine. Judge Agmon-Gonen was pioneering in her judgment and legal transplantation is a living organism within the Israeli legal system. That was how the Supreme Court imported the US fair use doctrine into Israeli law. Furthermore, the social and cultural implications of strict and narrow interpretations of the newly enacted fair use doctrine dismiss the advantages in this open-ended doctrine; it may end up with unnoticeably re-enacting the closed list of exceptions of the fair dealing doctrine which the legislature found too limited.

Still, on the eve of the Olympic Games and the recent rulings of the Canadian Supreme Court on fair dealings, it remains an interesting question whether streaming of track & field events amount to a user right within the meaning of Judge Agmon-Gonen’s ruling. Speaking of the Olympic Games and Israel, it is interesting to note, from another perspective, a recent confusing decision of the same court issuing an injunction preventing the Israeli Olympic Committee from using a character – Shpitzik (on the left) – as a mascot because it infringes the rights of Israel Education Television in one of their kids TV stars, Kishkashta (on the right) – a singing cactus.

Dr. Lior Zemer is a law lecturer at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) of the Radzyner School of Law in Herzliya, Israel. He is also a Visiting Associate Professor at Boston University School of Law. A more detailed publication by Dr. Zemer will follow in the Intellectual Property Journal (IPJ) later this year.

The post Streaming of a Live Sporting Event is not a User Right appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Rotem Guez officially to Mark Zuckerberg as of December 7, 2011. His decision was prompted by threats of legal action from Facebook against Guez’s website, . Likestore claims to boost website traffic by allowing users to increase their Facebook page “likes”. Likestore is a violation of Facebook’s and Facebook proceeded to a Facebook page created by Guez to promote his business. Last September, Facebook also sent Guez a cease and desist , threatening to sue if Guez did not stop his activities with Likestore.

Guez retaliated by changing his name and on December 14, 2011, Facebook threatened to sue, unknowingly targeting someone with the same name as Facebook’s founder. It seems that Guez hopes that Facebook will not want to sue someone named Marc Zuckerberg. Further, Guez/Zuckerberg is planning on creating a stir and has already started both and accounts under the name Mark Zuckerberg.

Facebook has to protect its trademark and Zuckerberg’s name has become almost synonymous with Facebook itself. The tort of involves consumer confusion when a trademark is used by someone not associated with the original source. The misrepresentation may also harm the reputation of the original trademark owner. Perhaps Mark Zuckerberg The Second should consider returning to Rotem Guez. Facebook is for launching lawsuits against potential competitors and likely will not hesitate to continue targeting Guez and Likestore.

Nora Sleeth is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Israeli Entrepreneur Changes Name to Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook Dislikes This appeared first on IPOsgoode.