Emily Xiang is an IPilogue Writer and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Huge changes have come to the Canadian Copyright Act. In late November of 2022, an was signed to fix December 30, 2022 as the date on which Division 16 of Part 5 of the Copyright Act came into force. The amendments come by way of legislation passed back in June 2022  to increase the term of copyright protection from 50 years to 70 years following the end of the calendar year of the author’s death.

The new changes are in line with Canada’s treaty obligations under the , which came into force on July 1st, 2020. Under CUSMA, the country made a commitment to extend its general term of copyright protection from 50 years to 70 years following the life of the author, with a transition period lasting until the end of 2022 to implement the changes. The extension brings Canada , including with many of its major trading partners, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. This extension will hopefully generate new opportunities for investment and commerce for Canada’s creative industries.

Following CUSMA, the Government of Canada commenced in early 2021 on the implications of the proposed copyright term extension. The consultations were met with mixed reactions. Many believed that the extended term of protection would provide rights holders with , thereby incentivizing creative production. On the other hand, the proposed amendments also garnered significant pushback, particularly from user-oriented groups, as the extended term would mean further restriction on public access. An overview of the differing views from the perspective of the educational publishing industry in particular can be found in .��

Following the public consultations, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also addressed mandate letters to the Ministers of and of , requesting that the departments work together to amend the Copyright Act in order to further protect artists, creators, and copyright holders. A commitment to making the legislative changes was also included in the .

With the changes to the Copyright Act coming into effect, there is more clarity as to what works might be encompassed by the new amendments. According to , the extended term of protection will not apply to works that already entered the public domain before the amendments come into force. Works with copyright set to expire on or before December 30, 2022 will not be privy to the extended protection term. In other words, the extension will not operate retroactively. On the other hand, copyright in a work that is set to expire on or after December 31, 2022 should benefit from an additional 20 years of protection.��

The post Government of Canada Has Officially Extended Copyright Terms appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Andrew Masson is an IPilogue Writer and 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The meat may be fake, but the beef is real between The juggernaut artificial meat producer Impossible Foods is suing the start-up Motif FoodWorks for . Impossible Foods claims that the heme technology used by Motif too closely imitates their artificial meat technologies. This case may be significant for the future of alternative meats as it can determine the boundaries of Impossible Food's patent monopoly on the process of producing alternative meats.

Meat Alternatives

In recent years, there has been more demand and an expansion of food options for vegetarians, vegans, and those looking to reduce their meat consumption. Concerns about sustainability and the environment have driven many people to switch to meat alternatives in order to reduce their carbon footprints. Although the cause may be altruistic, it has also been a very profitable enterprise. Impossible Foods is valued and as a startup, Motif is valued from investors such as Bill Gates. Consequently, there is a lot of money to be made in this developing market and Impossible Foods will want to strategically limit its competition.

The Case

Impossible Foods uses a in their beef and pork substitutes, which is produced from genetically modified yeast, whereas Motif in the production of its heme. However, Impossible Foods claims that the use of heme is an on their intellectual property. Impossible Foods believes that its patent protects against the invention of any beef substitute that uses a muscle replica including the heme-containing protein. Impossible Foods claim that their patent generally covers heme meat replicate composed of at least one sugar and one sulfur compound or a fat tissue replica that uses at least one plant oil and a denatured plant protein. Motif’s is that they have not violated the patent agreements and Impossible Foods is acting to stifle competition. It seems to be a disagreement over the extent to which the patent protects processes versus ingredients.

If Impossible Foods can establish strong patent protection of the general process and earn a level of protection  similar to that of , Impossible Foods can limit the ability of competitors to enter the space. In the pharmaceutical sector, wide patent protections have allowed companies to dominate market share and establish monopolies. These monopolies can , as they have in the USA, due to a lack of competition, demonstrating the possible problems with broad patents . Alternative meats are less likely to create the same issue because there is direct competition with ‘real’ meats and other vegetarian options for alternative meat. Therefore, whether or not Impossible Foods succeeds in this infringement suit, the outcome is unlikely to greatly impact the consumer. However, it could drastically impact Impossible Food's ability to maintain a significant market share in the artificial meat industry.

The post Where’s the Beef: Patent Battle Over Artificial Meats appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Maria Prymachenko, (1982)

Claire Wortsman is an IPilogue Senior Editor and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On February 25, invading Russian forces the Ivankiv Historical and Local Museum, and the many culturally and historically significant pieces it housed, to the ground. The Museum’s collection included 25 paintings by Maria Prymachenko, the celebrated Ukrainian artist world-famous for her colourful folk art style. Prymachenko’s great-granddaughter that a local man ran into the burning building and was able to save some of the precious works. Yet many more pieces were lost, and millions of artworks and monuments at risk from Russia’s military onslaught. These those dating back to the Byzantine and Baroque periods, as well as UNESCO World Heritage sites.

Ukrainian Minister of Culture Olexandr Tkachenko has that Russia lose its UNESCO membership. The destruction of Ukrainian cultural heritage at the hands of Russia is not a novel occurrence -  the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the conflicts in Donetsk and Luhansk to the loss of dozens of archaeological, historical, and artistic collections. James Cuno, President of the J. Paul Getty Trust, released a condemning the cultural atrocities taking place in Ukraine alongside the unfathomable human and environmental losses. Cuno identifies that cultural heritage has the power to unite us, and is critical for achieving peace, making it a common target in war; a means of destroying a society by erasing its memory. Officials preserving and protecting cultural legacies in times of conflict has the power to bind local people and foster peace, once the shooting stops.

The importance of safeguarding cultural property extends beyond the borders of Ukraine. The preamble of the recognizes that “… any damage to cultural property, irrespective of the people it belongs to, is a damage to the cultural property of all humanity, because every people contributes to the world’s culture.” Putin’s continued violation of international law is a blow to the international legal order – one that Yale Law School’s Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro must be met with an aggressive and resolute response.

Uncertainty and crisis in Ukraine have left many fleeing their homes, while museum employees remain behind to look out for their collections in whatever way they can – whether by standing guard, hiding art in basements, or (for those farther away from the war zones) transforming into a place of temporary respite for those who have fled. Fedir Androshchuk, the director of the National Museum of the History of Ukraine, is standing alongside two colleagues in an to safeguard the museum from attack or looting. He that “the museum is located in the middle of a rich cultural heritage area near three fine churches, but also close to some possible targets (the Ukrainian security service and border forces).” This proximity to potential military targets is significant from an international law perspective, [1], as the carves a “military necessity” exception out of its protections for cultural property. As by Captain Joshua E. Kastenberg, “Where a defender state harbors items of military value… in or near cultural property, the property loses its legal protections.”[2]

Androshchuk also , “there is no guarantee that the Ukrainian cultural heritage will not be plundered and transferred to Russian museums, especially given that Kyiv has a special place in Putin’s interpretation of Russian history and its roots.” The destruction of Ukraine’s cultural heritage serves the narrative of Vladimir Putin, who that Ukraine is a nation and that Ukrainians are a people. Perpetrators of the intentional destruction of cultural heritage seek to destroy the communities for which the heritage is perceived as an essential element of their own life, cultural identity, and distinctiveness.[3] Yet Putin’s assault has backfired – Ukraine itself, the West against Russia, and images of Prymachenko’s uniquely Ukrainian style around the world.

[1] Captain Joshua E. Kastenberg, “The Legal Regime for Protecting Cultural Property During Armed Conflict,” Air Force Law Review 42 A.F.L Rev. (1997)

[2] Ibid

[3] Federico Lenzerini, “Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage,” The Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law (2020)

The post A Dove Has Spread Her Wings and Asks for Peace: Ukrainian Cultural Heritage at Risk appeared first on IPOsgoode.