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

On February 22, 2023, it was that Google is blocking news content on its platform for under 4% of Canadian users in a five-week test as a potential protest of Bill C-18. While Parliament referred to this secret news blocking test by the tech giant as “,” this reality of Bill C-18 does not come as a surprise to critics who voiced these concerns throughout the legislative process.

Bill C-18, the , was first passed by the House of Commons in April 2022 and aimed to respect online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada. This would provide news publishers with a framework to strike deals with tech giants, such as Google and Meta, to share the revenue they receive when reposting news content from publishers.

Parliament stressed that Bill C-18 will help recoup financial losses sustained by the news media industry in Canada. However, there is great concern as to whether Google and/or Meta will limit or fully shut down its news aggregation services to avoid payments. These concerns are warranted, as Google its Google News outlet in Spain for eight years to avoid paying for links and snippets citing stories from Spanish newspapers and other outlets. Google also conducted similar news blocking tests in response to the attempting to pass a code similar to Bill C-18 which sought to promote negotiations between news publishers and tech giants. Even more recently, Google Google News snippets in Czechia in response to Czech Copyright Act reform seeking to compensate Czech news publishers.

The costs of Bill C-18 to Google and Meta are not insignificant, with the estimating news businesses to receive a total compensation of $329.2 million CAD per annum from digital platforms. Given that both and generate upwards of $100 billion USD per annum, the costs of Bill C-18 appear to be a drop in the bucket for the tech giants. However, the backlash from Google to a lack of input from the Parliamentary Budget Officer as to how this figure was calculated. Parliament consulted the Australian Communication and Media Authority to learn more about its Bill-C18-like legislation implementation in Australia, so the estimates may have been based on Australian data.

Google’s news blocking test in Canada illustrates that the reality of Bill C-18 may go against its very purpose by digital platforms to link to news materials. This will not only limit access to online news content in Canada, but, more significantly, will further drive the losses suffered by Canada’s news media industry. , more than 450 news outlets in Canada have closed, with 64 closures in the past two years. With the second reading of Bill C-18 now in progress at the Senate, Parliament may need to reconsider its legislative approach to avoid further backlash from Google and Meta.

The post The (Not-So) Secret Side of Bill C-18: Google Tests Blocking Online News Content for Canadians appeared first on IPOsgoode.

On March 21, 2019, we had the pleasure of attending IP Ogsoode's  conference series held at the Toronto Reference Library. This year’s conference theme was data governance, with a focus on novel legal issues with respect to two key sectors - health/science and smart cities. Professor D’Agostino’s opening remarks touched on the legal and ethical dimensions of data governance, given the large amount of activity over the last year in the AI space.  The day was broken down into five panel discussions, with a luncheon keynote by Professor Kang Lee from the University of Toronto.

Why is Data so Important to the Development of AI?

The first discussion focused on the impact of data quantity and quality which determine AI capability. Jonathan Penney (Assistant Professor of Law; Director, Law & Technology Institute, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University) provided three instances where data was more important than the AI systems themselves: in advancing AI, in addressing bias and discriminatory practices in existing systems, and in AI accountability and transparency to understand decision making. Notably, Alexander Wissner-Gross examined the last 30 years of AI development, and found that the recent advances were largely due to the availability of large data sets. In 2011, IBM Watson Jeopardy Champion used data from 8.6 million Wikipedia articles and in 2014, GoogleNet object classification used 1.5 million images on ImageNet to train its AI system. Carole Piovesan (Partner & Co-Founder, INQ Data Law)  echoed the importance of data to AI systems, and touched upon the two growing debates regarding data exchange and privacy.  The crux of the privacy debate focuses on the trade-off between privacy as a quasi-constitutional value versus the importance of innovation and the need for data to produce public goods. She called upon the audience to think about what a fair exchange in today’s data marketplace means to them.  Finally, the shifting policy led by the EU's adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was discussed. In Canada, current regulations still focus mainly on consent. Both speakers acknowledged that we should be moving towards establishing standards as very few people actually enforce their rights.

Intellectual Property at a Crossroad

Three key ideas came out of the second panel discussion, namely, the issue of whether AI systems and programs are eligible for copyright or patent protection under current statutes, the international implications and developments, and the importance of AI in collaboration. Dave Green (Assistant General Counsel, IP Law & Policy, Microsoft) shared Microsoft’s perspective on AI’s role in enabling machine intelligence to simulate or augment elements of human thinking. Two copyright issues that come into play with AI are defining “Works of Authorship” and identifying whether specific types of “copying” are enough to create liability, both of which have been complicated by the use of computer programs and factual materials. Internationally, the requirement that humans be the authors of creative works is found in the constitutions of US, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand, in the UK and other countries. As technology and AI advances, do we want to continue to insist upon the requirement that authors of creative works be humans? If we don’t, what does that say about downstream issues such as intent, infringement, and liability? In regards to international approaches to data mining - should there be a fair dealing exception, particularly when you look at addressing the issue of bias? The WIPO recently established a new division that focuses purely on AI, which will be especially important given the spike in AI patenting activity that has occurred over the past several years. Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid (Faculty Member and Lecturer, ONO Academic Law School and Fordham Law School) challenged the audience with the Turing Test, proving that it is often difficult to identify between works created by AI or a human being.

Catherine Lacavera (Director of IP, Litigation and Employment, Google Inc.) shared her belief that the existing patent and copyright systems are robust enough to deal with changes we are seeing in AI, though the regulatory and social impact front of AI are changing at a fast pace. In this regard, it is important to balance social benefit with the potential for abuse and the importance of building diverse data sets and incorporating privacy and affordability in our design principles going forward. Maya Medeiros (Partner, Norton Rose Fullbright Canada LLP) stressed the importance of using IP rights to facilitate multi-party collaborations to protect AI innovation and incentivize collaborative behaviour. Furthermore, she raised the issues of fair dealing in data mining and the use of different types of IP rights to protect different aspects of works being generated.

Resolving Data Barriers

The third panel  focused on the tools required to access data and facilitates the development of AI.

Momin Malik (Data Science Postdoctoral Fellow, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University) discussed how AI is beneficial in certain contexts, such as for predicting behaviour. However, the data that is valuable for AI is often limited by access to copyright protected materials.  For example, in the development of Google's information retrieval system, the company faced many copyright issues.  However, they were able to successfully navigate the copyright challenges by entering into agreements with publishers to create , and ultimately make data more accessible to the public.

Paul Gagnon (Legal Counsel, Element AI) contemplated whether sui generis legislation is the way forward. Europe, for example, relied on the existing concept of fair dealing as an exemption for data mining. However, this exemption is limited as it only applies to researchers and not commercial institutions. Having open data and accessible data are two distinct concepts. Accessibility does not necessitate that you can use the data. Uses may be restricted by specific purposes, such as “for academic use only”.

Dave Green concluded the panel discussion by contemplating whether copyright could “make nice with AI”. AI does not copy for the purpose of replicating the work or infringing on the underlying value of expression, but rather it can unlock different insights than “Works of Authorship”. This is the difference between the use of a photo as a work, for aesthetic purposes or factual reporting, and the use of a photo as data.  Green looked at examples of how different jurisdictions are making copyright safe for AI and machine learning, such as the fair use exception in Israel. Democratizing the right to learn and research is essential to this field and it remains to be seen how other jurisdictions may embrace this fact.

Luncheon Keynote: Affective Artificial Intelligence & Law: Opportunities, Applications, and Challenges

Kang Lee (Professor and Tier 1 CRC Chair in developmental neuroscience, University of Toronto) amazed the audience with a showcase of his connected health venture, .  Dr. Lee's interdisciplinary invention brings together research from neuroscience, psychology, physiology, and deep learning to produce AI that can detect, measure, and analyze human affect through physiological cues. The mobile application turns smart devices into a personal health tool that individuals can use to manage stress and get updates on their personal health. It uses (TOI), which uses video to recognize facial blood flow imaging from the human face. This image is then processed by , which is the AI that can detect and measure different human emotions. Dr. Lee’s work is significant as it demonstrates how AI can improve the health and science fields to give patients more control over their health care.

Big Data, Health & Science

The fourth panel discussion focused on the unique AI and data issues in the health and science sectors. James Elder (Professor, Lassonde School of Engineering; 91��ɫ Research Chair in Human and Computer Vision, 91��ɫ) discussed potential uses for converting raw data into 2D images and subsequently converting these images into 3D models. 3D modelling with real data has applications for road and pedestrian traffic. The technology may also address some privacy concerns since his 3D virtualization technology turns the 2D images into avatars, which has the effect of anonymizing visual appearances. There are many opportunities for visual AI to help improve daily processes.

Victor Garcia (Managing Director & CEO, ABCLive Corporation) discussed how big data can transform the health sciences. Data helps to improve the way companies in this sector do business. Clinical, insurance claims, pharmaceutical, research and development, patient behaviour, and lifestyle data can all contribute a plethora of knowledge to the health sector. These can improve process efficiencies and make hospital resources available sooner to new patients. For example, Humber River Hospital used data analytics to improve their health care services and increase efficiency by 40%.

Ian Stedman (PhD Candidate, Osgoode Hall Law School; Fellow in AI Law & Ethics at SickKids’ Centre for Computational Medicine) highlighted SickKid's move to integrate AI into their practice with the development of a task force to examine how data governance and policies, infrastructure, AI solutions, and ethics interacted before implementing new AI tools.  Stedman stressed that data source and quality are essential because in the health sector, it is essential to ask all the right questions to make accurate conclusions and diagnoses. With clinical studies, it is much easier to access data since there is a research plan, which includes the research purpose, the targeted population, and the results the researcher hopes to observe. However, with the data that AI relies on, in order to unlock its potential value, researchers study data to find patterns. Therefore, it is difficult to ask for secondary use disclosure before the research is conducted when the researcher may not know what they are looking for. The takeaway is that regardless of the industry, harmonization and collaboration are key. There is opportunity to put data together from different sources to discover the potential of new clinical decision making tools.

What Makes a Smart City?

In Toronto, and internationally, data privacy issues have come to the forefront of public discussion due to the development of smart cities. Given the proposed Sidewalk Toronto, the collection, storage, and use of data has led to a heated debate about data governance. The Mayor of Barrie, Jeff Lehman, discussed the project which calls upon start-ups and small organizations to develop new technologies that use data to address civic challenges. Instead of putting out a traditional municipal tender, the cities released a Request for Solutions and invited responses from the public to provide a cohesive opportunity for collaboration. In response to the issue of data localization in the Sidewalk Toronto debate, Mayor Lehman believes that consent is possible, but that the data must reside in Canada to ensure that the national government can set the rules around the data being collected. Finally, Mayor Lehman advocated for the use of Privacy Impact Assessments to evaluate the impact of new technology on privacy.

Neetika Sathe (Vice President, Advanced Planning, Alectra Inc.) advocated for the importance of data policies regarding smart cities to be worked on at every level of government to develop a national data strategy. Furthermore, Sathe introduced the audience to some of Alectra’s projects and the data collection challenges associated with each. These projects included (end-to-end integrated EV workplace charging pilot project), the (which collects smart meter data), and the (which uses a private blockchain network that limits access to data).

Natasha Tusikov (Assistant Professor, Dept. Social Science, 91��ɫ; The City Institute at 91��ɫ) challenged the audience to think about who should own, control and govern data related to smart cities.  Prof. Tusikov discussed the issue of conflicting public and private authority, raising her concern that Waterfront Toronto is not an expert in IP, but in land development. As an example of regulating the governance of smart cities, Barcelona developed a manifesto outlining the importance of technological sovereignty and maintaining digital rights.

To close the panel discussion, John Weigelt (National Technology Officer, Microsoft Canada Inc.)  spoke about the importance of solidifying the participants involved in developing a smart city and the business model we want to create. If employed correctly, AI will solve societal challenges. Municipalities and companies that can thoughtfully clarify their approach to AI first will prosper the most from its benefits.

The conference encouraged thought-provoking discussion about data governance and its implications on health and smart cities. We hope that the discussion about data collection and what we value as society continues beyond this event. Thoughtful and inclusive discussion will allow us to collectively brace for impact as AI technology continues to advance.

Written by Lauren Chan and Summer Lewis. Lauren Chan is an IPilogue editor and a business student at the University of Guelph, and Summer Lewis is an IPilogue editor and a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post ICYMI: Highlights from Part 2 of IP Osgoode's Bracing for Impact AI Conference Series appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Bracing for Impact – The Artificial Intelligence Challenge (A Road Map for AI Governance in Canada)

Date: February 2, 2018

Location: Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen St. W., Toronto, Canada

Time: Conference (9:00 AM to 4:30 PM); Cocktail Reception (4:30 PM to 6:00 PM)

TO REGISTER CLICK

Registration rates are as follows:
Students: $25+HST
General Admission: $75+HST
Live WebCast: $10+HST

Speakers and Panel Chairs will be registered on a complimentary basis. Please do not register if you are a speaker or panel chair.

Recent developments in artificial intelligence, and especially machine learning technology, automated vehicles, and genetic enhancement pose a challenge to governments in Canada and abroad. At the current stage, government policy regarding the possible technological changes must be studied.

The conference will focus on the following panel topics:

Panel I – AI – IP & Commercialization Issues

Future developments in the field of AI pose a challenge to intellectual property. The current legal regime does not offer protection for AI creations. Thus, registering AI patents and allocate copyright protection for AI inventions and works is not yet possible. Subsequently, AI creations might fall under the public domain. We wish to address these concerns and to offer new insights and suggestions for the upcoming era.

Panel II – AI & Industry

The Path of Law, as Justice Holmes articulated in his seminal paper, is in constant development – like the development of a planet – each generation taking the necessary step forward. Advancements in AI promise to change our society in the years to come and will drastically affect every aspect of our legal norms. It is therefore crucial for us to confront the legal issues that these advancements will doubtless give rise to and to aspire to create guidelines to help us navigate the inevitable changes to our society. In this regard, we hope that Canada can provide a road map for the legal treatment of AI issues in several key areas.

Panel III – Cybersecurity in the AI Era

Cybersecurity is quickly emerging as a crucial component of every nation's security efforts. Recent events around the world have proven the importance of developing the tools needed to face this challenge. AI poses both a risk and opportunity. This Panel will explore the possible changes in modern cybersecurity warfare in the AI era. In doing so, it will bring to the table several experts in the field in an effort to shape a better government cybersecurity policy for the next generation.

Panel IV – AI For Social Good

keeps widening as inequality grows markedly. Artificial Intelligence holds great potential for helping us to lessen these inequalities. While AI is often viewed as a threat to social justice, the opposite may in fact be true. Machine learning in language translation technology can collapse the barriers between third world countries and the West. Algorithmic decision-making can lessen the bias effects toward minority groups. From transportation, healthcare, agriculture to sustainably and governance - the positive applications of AI are unlimited in scope.

The post Registration is Now Open for "Bracing for Impact: The #ArtificialIntelligence Challenge"! appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In response to the creation of a new, adult entertainment-centric domain - .XXX - many universities and trademark holders are buying up potentially pornographic versions of their web properties before they fall into irresponsible or malicious hands.

The .XXX domain names are reserved for adult-themed websites to create a red-light district on the internet, with all attendant advantages and disadvantages. The domains will be easily identified and blocked, likely seedy, and a headache for trademark holders. The spent almost $3000 on domains, such as www.KUgirls.xxx and www.KUnurses.xxx, and intends to sit on them and do nothing.

Beginning in 2000 ICM Registry LLC (a private company from Palm Beach, Florida) began to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (, an international, not-for-profit organization that regulates internet domain names) proposing the creation of new Top-Level Sponsored Domain Registry - .XXX. As opposed to unsponsored domains, such as .com, sponsored domains are intended to represent a specific community, in this case, the adult entertainment industry. ICM’s proposal was repeatedly rejected by ICANN. Only after a February 2010 hearing by ICANN’s Independent Review Panel in Washington was ICM found to have met the required sponsorship criteria and on April 7, 2011 ICANN to ICM.

Intellectual property issues were among the main reasons .XXX was rejected for so long. The international nature of the internet conflicts with the regional nature of trademarks, so multiple valid trademark holders may by vying for the same domain name. ICM has a IP claims notifications procedures in place for this eventuality. Another obvious concern is brand damage via pornographic parodies.

In their FAQs, ICM that those not in the adult entertainment industry take a preventative approach and reserve their domain names, even though there are post-launch rights protection procedures in place. Of course, this conveniently aligns with their business model. The .XXX domain names go for $60 - $100 each, which is significantly more expensive than most .COM domains. For this reason, many critics view ICM’s business model as tantamount to extortion.

The sale was designed by ICM to address many of these concerns. It consisted of two “sunrise” periods, an auction and then a general sale. In the first phase, trademark holders inside the adult entertainment industry could claim .XXX versions of sites they already held the trademark for. In the second, non-adult brands could have their names removed from circulation. What followed was a “landrush” in which premium addresses that hadn’t removed themselves were auctioned off, for example: www.nike.xxx. Finally, as of December 6, 2011 everything remaining is being on a first-come-first-served basis through a variety of middlemen domain registries.

What about Canadian universities? Major Brands? All registrations are public, mildly entertaining and viewable . Both www.yorku.xxx and www.utoronto.xxx have been registered by 1764210 Ontario Inc. of Kleinburg, Ontario, perhaps as an investment in future mischief or for resale. UVic registered www.uvic.xxx. Others, such as www.ualberta.xxx and www.mcgill.xxx were reserved during the sunrise phase and are not available for registration.

At present, www.osgoodehall.xxx is currently available for purchase for the low price of $99.99 USD a year if any law students are seeking a fallback career or foothold in the adult entertainment industry.

The post DomainRush.xxx appeared first on IPOsgoode.